S.07-29

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Senate Committee on University Priorities

?

Memorandum

TO:

Senate ?

FROM: ?

John Waterhous

Chair, SCUP

Vice Preside ?

cademic

RE:

School of Computing Science

?

DATE: ?

February 13, 2007

The Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP) has reviewed the External

Review Report on the School of Computing Science, together with responses from the

School and Dean of the Faculty of Applied Sciences, and input from the Associate Vice

President, Academic.

Motion:

That Senate approve the recommendations from the Senate Committee on

University Priorities concerning advice to the School of Computing Science and the

Dean of Applied Sciences on priority items resulting from the External Review.

The report of the External Review

Committee*

for the School of Computing Science was

submitted in May 2006 following the review team's site visit, which took place March 27

-29, 2006. The response from the School and the response from the Dean were

received in September and December 2006 respectively.

The Review Team found that the general environment in the School is positive and that

faculty members, staff and students were cautiously optimistic about the future

prospects for the School. The Team believed that the School had done 'remarkably well'

to sustain enrolment levels when the majority of schools in North America saw

enrollment fall dramatically in the last three years.

A number of recommendations were made and there is general agreement on these

recommendations between the School and the Dean.

SCUP recommends to Senate that the School of Computing Science and the Dean of

Applied Sciences be advised to pursue the following as priority items.

---

1.

Strategic Planning

?

0

• Conduct a SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and

Threats) and articulate clear goals for each program at each campus,

including the number of faculty, staff and students.

• Participate fully in the process initiated by the Vice President Academic for

reviewing the effectiveness of the Faculty structure at SFU.

2.

Research

o Continue the development of an Industry Relations Centre and the

proposed Centre for Open Source Technology and Applications Research

and ensure that activities of these centres coordinate with the efforts of the

University /Industry Liaison Office.

o Explore ways of strengthening the School's research clusters with a view

of increasing their success in seeking funding opportunities and ensure

both junior and senior faculty members are involved.

o Establish a forum for the School of Interactive Arts & Technology and

Computing Science faculty where they could discuss common research

problems and foster collaboration.

?

0

3.

Graduate Programmes

o Continue to ensure all graduate students participate in TA training through

the mechanisms established in the School.

o Ensure all graduate students at SFU Surrey receive broad exposure to the

?

faculty and other graduate students at SFU, as well as visiting faculty.

4.

Undergraduate Programmes

o Continue to pursue more effective ways to recruit students for Surrey by

integrating the School's efforts with other SFU recruitment activity, thereby

offering a more harmonized attractive package to potential students.

o Investigate CSAC accreditation (the process could be used to review and

evaluate the Computing Science degree and the multi-disciplinary

programmes offered by the School).

^ _l ^

2

---

S

5. Academic Quality

o Improve quality assurance mechanisms to:

• Ensure that the curriculum design reflects and achieves the

identified educational objectives.

. Establish industry/external advisory panels where appropriate.

6.

Faculty

o Continue with the recently introduced formal mentoring programme to

assist in the integration of new faculty into SFU, particularly those at the

Surrey campus.

o Consider the introduction of meaningful ways to encourage and recognize

the scholarly contributions of lecturers and senior lecturers.

o Continue to reassess the current policies for assigning teaching duties to

ensure an appropriate palette of courses is offered each semester and

-that faculty members have more flexibility in their choice of lecturing

schedules.

7.

Communication

o

Ensure that communication channels are established and operate

effectively to consult, inform and provide feedback mechanisms among

the Dean, the School, the Surrey campus, faculty members and staff.

* Dr. Randy Goebel, Chair, (University of Alberta)

Dr. Frank Tompa (University of Waterloo)

Dr. Mary-Anne Williams, (University of Technology, Sydney)

CC Brian Lewis, Dean Applied Sciences

Uwe Glässer, Director, School of Computing Science

S

L

3

---

External Review of the School of Computing Science,

?

Simon Fraser University, March 2006

Executive Summary

This report describes the results of an external review of the School of Computing Science.

It is based on the information sources made available to the review team, complemented by

discussions held during the site visit.

The report includes 22 recommendations that we suggest be considered by administrators

at various levels within the University. Of these we, believe the following to be the most

important (numbers refer to the ordering of the recommendations in the body of the report):

Recommendation 18:

The School should articulate clear goals for each program at each

campus, including target audiences and curricular objectives. These goals should be

incorporated into recruiting and planning documents. In this way the School can ensure

that potential student pathways will lead to the attainment of the academic objectives.

Recommendation 1:

The Dean, the Director of the School, and the Associate Director for

CS@Surrcy should ensure that communications, consultation, and feedback channels

among all interested parties (and especially among these three individuals) are well-

established so that they can build a shared understanding of priorities, opportunities,

concerns, and financial realities.

• ?

Recommendation 13:

The School should consider ways to enhance its research clusters so

that they function even more effectively as meaningful units, and it should explore the

creation of a School based research centre that could provide the clusters leverage their

common strengths to seek funding opportunities.

Recommendation

3: The School should introduce a mentoring program to help integrate

new faculty members into the School activities and to help them develop an

understanding of the School objectives, expectations, and how to access support and

potential opportunities. This is particularly vital at Surrey, where the infrastructure is

much less well established.

Recommendation

7: The effective recruiting methods for Burnaby should be expanded

and adapted to encompass candidates for the Surrey campus. CS recruiters should work

closely with recruiters for TechOne and Science Year One to present a harmonized,

attractive package.

As reviewers, we appreciate the effort and energy expended by administrators, faculty,

staff, and students in preparing for the review, and we thank all those who willingly shared

their views and experiences. We recognize that such an external review is based on

looking through a small peephole at a complex organization, and that it inevitably includes

some misperceptions. Furthermore, many of our observations may result from transient

events, and several identified shortcomings may well be in the process of being addressed.

Nevertheless, we trust that the report will serve to help make a strong program even better.

Randy Goebel, goebel@cs.ualberta.ca

Frank Tompa (chair), fwtompa@cs.uwaterloo.ca

Mary-Anne Williams, mary-anneit.uts.edu.au

---

0__

I Introduction and Terms of Reference

The site visit for the external review of the School of Computing Science took. place from

March 27 to March 29, 2006. The external reviewers included Professors Randy Goebel

(University of Alberta), Frank Tornpa (University of Waterloo), and Mary-Anne

Williams (University of Technology, Sydney). Professor Rick Routicdge (Department of

Statistics and Actuarial Science) served as the internal member of the committee.

The terms of reference for the review included SFU's standard goals to seek peer review

of the quality of the teaching programs, faculty research, governance, and working

environment in the School. The issues of particular interest were specified to

be:

a) "Evaluate the "Double the Opportunities" enrolments in undergraduate and

graduate Computing Science programs and provide advice on ways of increasing

these numbers in the foreseeable future;

b)

Provide advice on ways of securing sustainable financial support for graduate

students at a level that is competitive with other Computer Science departments at

major Canadian universities;

c)

Suggest opportunities for increasing external research funding through major

research grants for strategic research projects, specifically in interdisciplinary

research and priority areas as outlined in SFU's Strategic Research Plan;

d) Suggest alternative academic structure(s) that, in the context of a restructuring of

the Faculties of the university, make the most sense with respect to the needs and

interests of the School of Computing Science;

e)

Suggest possible strategic directions and focus for the undergraduate program, in

light of current strengths and weaknesses, and in light of changes in the academic

discipline."

We have structured the report with these points in mind. There are eight Sections

covering the following areas; working environment, governance, enrolments, graduate

student financial support, external research funding, academic structure, and

undergraduate programs in the School. Related comments on teaching, research, and

governance are included in all sections, as appropriate. The final Section includes other

observations that lie outside these specific foci.

To place our comments in perspective, it is important to understand the state of flux

affecting the School during the time of the review. Most of the School's offices and

activities moved into the TASC I complex in August 2005, with sonic furnishings and

infrastructure still not in place. Several people told us that the move "threw them off their

stride." Secondly, the composition of the School is in the middle oltransformation: the

activities at Surrey started only a couple of years ago and will soon move to new

premises, and the exchange program with Zhcjiang University and activities at a third

campus site, Harbour Centre, are about to commence. Thirdly, the Director of the School

had been in his job for only three months and the Dean of the Facult y

was very recently

re-appointed; both are still striving to determine how best to work together 'or the benefit

of the School. Finally, the prospect of possible Faculties restructuring is creating great

uncertainty in all aspects of governance, decision-making. and planning.

---

S

2 Working Environment

2.1

Staff concerns and uncertainties

Despite the potentially disruptive impact of office relocations, new programs, new

campuses, new faculty members, and proposals for new Faculty structures, as outlined in

the introduction, the general mood in the School is positive. The faculty members, staff,

and students we met during the site visit were all cautiously optimistic about the future

prospects for the School. They were clearly happy to be at SFU, because of a

combination of its reputation, geography, and general working environment.

Most of the groups we met expressed some uncertainty in light of recent and possible

pending changes. For example, many of those involved in building or administering the

program at Surrey were concerned whether it would prove itself viable at the

undergraduate and graduate levels soon enough to avoidundcrmining the School's

reputation. Many more were concerned about the possible negative effects of DTO

coupled with the North American downturn in undergraduate applicants: Would the

faculty complement be significantly reduced? Would graduate students continue to be

funded at appropriate levels? Were staff position secure? Would the amount of overwork,

overcrowding, and turmoil revert to the worst times during the CS boom in the 90s?

On the other hand, there was a nearly universal belief that the undergraduate enrolments

•

?

will soon rebound, and this aligns with the expectations at other institutions in North

America, the Asia-Pacific region, and Europe. Effective recruiting efforts for students

have been developed over the last several years, and these have helped the School

to

maintain their undergraduate numbers at Burnaby when many other institutions in North

America and elsewhere have seen enrolments drop by 60% or more.' Whereas co-op jobs

were in short supply very recently, this year there were more positions available than

there were students enrolled in the program. The concern in everyone's minds was that

the University might cut support to the School before the turn-around is confirmed, and

that this could jeopardize the fttturc. This concern was fueled by the uncertainty in the

commitment to hire new faculty this year (when recruiting season was in full swing and

faculty candidates were, in fact, visiting the campus) and the possibly unjustified belief

that the upper administration thought the faculty complement was already too high in

view of lack of growth in student numbers and therefore positions might be cut.

A significant challenge for senior faculty and administrators will be to address these

challenges and to overcome the uncertainties.

2.2 Communication

During the site visit, we found several discontinuities in communications. Some of these

seemed to rest solely within Computing Science, whereas others seemed to fall between

the School and the Dean or the School and the University Vice-Presidents. Surprisingly

we were often told of some concern during one interview, only to be informed that the

concern was ill-founded in a second interview, and then told by the first party that this

and strategic planning, and they may have a detrimental effect on the School, the Faculty

and the University.

In the examples that follow, we do not assign blame to any individuals or groups but

merely illustrate some the communications breakdowns that became apparent to us

during the site visit.

The most striking example related to whether or not the School would be able to hire new

faculty members during the 2006 recruiting season, which was well underway. Several

faculty members wondered why recruiting visits were taking place when positions were

not yet confirmed. The Director of the School and the Associate Director for CSSurrey

indicated that positions for 2006 were not yet approved, and indicated that they believed

that the approval was being held up in the office of the Vice-President, Academic. The

Dean stated that positions for Surrey had been approved, but that replacement positions at

Burnaby were at risk. The Director re-affirmed that he had not yet been informed of

approval for hiring at Surrey (and he was glad to hear from us that it could apparently

proceed, since it is sorely needed).

A second example concerned the suitability of the TechOne program at Surrey to prepare

students for ongoing studies in Computing Science. We heard from the Computing

Science Director of Undergraduate Programs that many students in the TechOne program

at Surrey were struggling with the standard first year computing science course and that,

starting in September, it was to be replaced by a service course that would not allow

students to continue towards a degree in Computing Science. There was general concern

that this change was needed because of the cohort-based structure for first year students

at Surrey, and that it would result in fewer undergraduate students enrolling in

Computing Science, in spite of DTO pressures. In a later meeting with the Associate

Director for CS@Surrey, we were told that in spite of being structured as a cohort

program, TechOne students can opt for one of two streams: in one stream the standard

first year course was to be replaced by a service course, but students were being advised

that if they wished to keep their options open for a degree in Computing Science, they

should register in the other stream which would continue to offer the standard first year

course. He believed that this would not be problematic for such students, and that the

ability of Computing Science students to attract undergraduates would not be hampered.

Apparently this information was not common knowledge within the rest of the

Computing Science faculty, including the other members of the Academic Executive

Committee.

While discussing potential opportunities for funding graduate students, several faculty

members mentioned that they were considering how best to apply for support from the

Community Trust Endowment Fund. We were told that even though the first application

deadline was only two months away. "it was still very early on" and many aspects of how

the applications were to be adjudicated were unclear. In a later meeting with the Vice-

President, Research, we were told that live information sessions had been held and

nobody from Computing Science had attended any of them, and fuihermorc that all the

information was clearly laid out on the web pages. Subsequently we were intbrnicd by

the Director olConiputing Science that at least two faculty members had, in fact,

attended the January 9 information session directed at the research lhemc "Communi-

4

?

&A

---

S ?

cation,

.

Computation and Technology," within which Computing Science research was

most apt to fall.

We learned that the School holds monthly meetings to inform faculty and staff of

important information, to seek counsel and advice from the members at large, and to

make or confirm decisions on actions to be taken by the School. This is an excellent

opportunity for information to be shared, but apparently it in insufficient:

I. ?

As at all institutions, some faculty members are disengaged from the School and

do not benefit from nor contribute to this communications channel. We were told

that some of the senior faculty members, including some strong researchers, arc

the ones most disengaged, which means that some potential leadership is absciit.

This is exacerbated by past hiring patterns, which have resulted in a faculty

profile with very few faculty members of moderate seniority.

2.

A recent change means administrative staff members are no longer invited to thc

meeting, but are instead represented by their managers. These staff members feel

disenfranchised as well as less informed.

3.

In spite of these meetings, some faculty members commented that the Executive

Committee made decisions without consulting the faculty at large. We heard more

than one person remark that some of the material in the self-study was news to

them and that important decisions were often announced at the Schoo.l meetings

. without prior discussion. It is important to recognize, however, that such failures

in communication might arise from the Executive not soliciting advice in the first

place or from faculty members ignoring such requests but then complaining after

the fact.

Clearly such communications shortfalls impact the School's operations. However, they

also impinge on the School's ability to plan tactically and strategically. For example,

without a clear understanding of the commitment to recruit faculty for Surrey, it is

impossible to plan for next year, much less for the next three to five years. Furthermore,

there is a lack olunderstanding of the program to be offered at Surrey (for which a new

proposal has just been completed). This means that the roles of TechOnc and Science

Year One in preparing students for that program arc unclear, as are which channels are to

be pursued for student recruiting. Thus it is impossible to plan how CS@Surrcy can

thrive.

In addition, the absence of a revised timetable for enrolment growth, performance

indicators against which such a plan will be evaluated (e.g., enrolment numbers vs.

graduation numbers), and clear backup plans in case DTO projections are met in only

some of the programs make other planning impossible. Some of these issues are

elaborated in later sections of the report.

Recommendation 1:

The Dean, the Director of the School, and the Associate Director

for CS@Surrey should ensure that communications, consultation, and feedback

channels among all interested parties (and especially among these three individuals)

are well-established so that they can build a shared understanding of priorities,

opportunities, concerns, and financial realities.

5

---

Recommendation

2: The School should strive to improve communication, consulta-

tion, and feedback channels among all faculty members, staff; and administrators

within the School.

2.3 Faculty Profile

Over the last few years the faculty has experienced rapid growth. This has resulted in an

unusual bimodal faculty profile, where the number of professors and assistant professors

is high, and there are very few associate professors. The distribution of staff as of the end

of April 2006 is given in Table I below; for comparison, the corresponding numbers

from five years ago are also included.

2

The influx of new faculty members has significantly enhanced the teaching and research

capabilities within the School. It has reinforced several areas of existing strength, and

also led to the creation of several new areas of expertise in emerging areas of growing

global interest such as computational biology However it has also introduced several

new problems, such as an increased need for mentoring, and a need to actively improve

communication channels within the School.

C

Level

Burnaby

Surrey

Total

200

j

-02

Professor

19

1

20

16

Associated

7

0

7

9

Assistant

16

3

19

4

Senior Lecturer

2

0

2

3

Lecturer

6

3

I ?

579

I ?

35

3

Table 1: Distribution of faculty members

As a consequence of the diversification of expertise, the School has been able to offer a

wide range of courses. This has clearly benefited both undergraduate and graduate

students. However the number of 800 level course offerings may have grown beyond the

optimum level in balancing highly focused research-oriented courses offerings against

broader, more established ones.

In response to the DTO program, the School has also increased the number of teaching

faculty at the rank of lecturer. These faculty members contribute immensely to the

School's educational mission, and care should be taken that they remain sufficiently

engaged in the course material to keep it up-to-date and to motivate the students. To tlis

end, it is important that they remain engaged in some scholarly activity (although not

necessarily in pushing the limits of knowledge through independent research).

Recommendation 3:

The School should introduce a mentoring program to help

integrate new faculty members into the School activities and to help them develop an

understanding of the School objectives, expectations, and how to access support and

potential opportunities. This is particularly vital at Surrey, where the infrastructure is

much less well established.

2

Simon Fraser University Calendar. 2001-2002.

0

6_1

q.

6

---

Recommendation

4: The School should reassess its current policies for allocating

teaching opportunities and responsibilities in order to ensure that an appropriate

palette of courses is offered each term. This should include a re-examination of the

factors that motivate professors to offer 800-level courses in preference to 700-level

ones.

Recommendation

5: The School should develop meaningful ways to encourage and

recognize the scholarly contributions of lecturers and senior lecturers.

3 Double the Opportunity Enrolments

The B.C. provincial government's Double The Opportunity (DTO) funding sou

ght

to

increase enrolment in post secondary technology programs (Computer'Cornputi ng

Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and related technology programs such as

TechOne at TcchBC, and now SF1.1 Surrey), beginning with the base full time equivalent

student enrolment numbers (FTEs) in the 2001/2002 academic year.

In that particular year, Computing Science at SFU "enjoyed" its all-time peak enrolment.

This coincided with the onset of the so-called "Dot Corn bust." followed by the increased

media attention on "outsourcing," both of which created a strong public perception that

there was no hope for employment in the technology sector. Even though there is

growing evidence that the demand for computer science graduates is growing and already

exceeds the demand of

1999,3

the public perception persists.

•

?

Around the same time. SFU took over the programs at TechBC, which included first year

cohort programs designed to attract technology-oriented students in common first year

programs, potentially leading to CS majors programs. The two technology programs are

referred to as TechOne (counted as

.5

contribution to DTO) and Information Technology.

In the current year

(2005/06),

there are 569.2 (TechOne) and 132.2 (Information

Technology), which provide

569.2

*

.5

+ 132.2 = 416.8, or 16.8 FTEs over the DTO

Surrey targets.

3.1 Undergraduate Program at Burnaby

While it is clear that the Burnaby targets were artificially high because of the time of

measurement, the school has done remarkably well to sustain those levels, especially

when the majority of schools in North America and elsewhere have seen enrolments fall

dramatically over the last three years

.4

The incredible success in sustaining the CS major

numbers is likely due to both the School's reduced admission requirements (shifting from

about 90% to 80% averages for direct admissions from high school), as well as

exceptional recruiting efforts in the high schools, both generally and by the WICS

programs. (Even though other universities also lowered entrance requirements, they still

suffered significant enrolment reductions.)

The undergraduate CS program at the Bumaby Campus has always been relatively

sustain the 2001/2002 numbers, despite the drop in enrolments in most other

jurisdictions.

In our conversations with undergraduate students, there was uniform praise regarding

their perception of the quality of the program, with no negative comments on either the

structure or quality of program content and instruction. Some concern was raised

regarding the quality of teaching assistants, especially with the difficulties many

have

with language and communication. There is concern that, as the program grows, there

will be more foreign graduate students, increasing the challenges to improve the

communication skills of TAs. We were informed, however, that the School is diligent in

its management of graduate student TAs, and it appears that SFU's practices are

comparable to TA assignment and training at both the University of Alberta and the

University of Waterloo.

Recommendation 6:

All graduate students should participate in TA training, which

should attempt to prepare non-native speakers of English and students with diverse

undergraduate backgrounds to serve as effective TAs.

3.2 Undergraduate Program at Surrey

The DTO growth targets of 100 per year over four years are based on the confidence that

the one year cohort programs will prove attractive in that jurisdiction, and that the

students it attracts will be well able to transfer into the majors programs that lead to the

granting of degrees in the regular bachelor's programs.

Currently, the DTO-counted admissions in both the TechOne, and Science Year One

cohort programs show that the DTO admissions targets of 100 per year are being met,

with the final year (05/06) producing 16.8 surplus of FTEs. However, it is not yet certain

how the DTO counting of FTEs vs. final graduates will map to performance targets at the

end of the evaluation period.

It is clear that the Surrey faculty and staff are working hard to market the value Of the

Surrey programs, despite the lack of clarity on overall structure to the Surrey program

(see above). However, the success of CS@Surrey will depend on recruiting both into the

cohort programs and into CS. We have observed that there is a need to coordinate the

marketing of CS programs across Surrey cohort programs (i.e.. both TechOne and

Science Year One) and across Computing Science programs at all campuses.

Recommendation

7: The effective recruiting methods for Burnaby should he expanded

and adapted to encompass candidates for the Surrey campus. CS recruiters should

work closely with recruiters for TechOne and Science Year One to present a

harmonized, attractive package.

3.3 Undergraduate Program at Harbour Centre

The evening courses in CS will begin at the downtown campus in Fall 2006 (with four

course offerings currently planned), and we understand that the students will be counted

in the Burnaby campus enrollments. The new pro2rarns are currently targeted at second

.

/1.

8

---

degree and post baccalaureate diploma students,

5 which contribute to DTO performance

measures.

The various program offerings across campuses are expected to be quite diverse and yet

complementary. It will become increasingly important to clarify pro

gram

offerings,

including effective means for initial registrations, for cross-registering in courses at other

campuses, and for transferring among the programs. Increased clarity here is important

for creating the targeted marketing material that will distinguish the opportunities at the

Harbour Centre, Burnaby, and Surrey campuses.

3.4 Graduate Program in Computer Science

The vast majority of the graduate students and graduate course offerings are in Burnaby,

with a few students operating instead in Surrey. The masters program is considerably

larger than the doctoral program; but notably, in 2004 Computing Science accounted for

10% of all doctoral students at the University.6

As is true for similar programs across the country (e.g., in Ontario and Alberta), the DTO

graduate student growth targets have been just slightly exceeded. The target baseline was

105.1 (as reported in the Dean's summary), with growth targets of 15 per year for four

years. In the official final year of 2005/06, the total is 170.2 FTEs, which is 2.7 over the

DTO target. (We did not ask whether graduate students at Surre

y

contribute to graduate

targets at Burnaby or undergraduate targets at Surrey, but the number of such students is

small, and both targets have been exceeded in any case.)

Recommendation 8:

Care must be taken that the graduate students in Surrey continue

to receive a worthwhile graduate experience, including adequate access to lab

facilities, exposure to academic visitors (through seminars and small meetings), and

broad exposure to the faculty and other graduate students at SFU.

35

Summary of DTO challenges

The DTO budget allocations are made to the Vice President Academic office, and the

School's portion is then passed on to the Dean of the Faculty, who in turn controls the

DTO allocations to the School. There is some lack of understanding in the School in how

this happens, with concerns heightened about how the funds will reach the School. We

understand that, until this year, the Dean's office had simply passed through the DTO

allocation without earmarking particular budget lines, but that this year, part of the

allocation is explicitl

y

earmarked for TAs. It makes sense that DTO funds would be

specifically targeted for graduate students, since the graduate targets have been met.

A significant concern within the school is the pressure on budgets to support graduate

students. Until now, full time graduate students have been supported 2/3 by the School

(through TAs and fellowships) and 1/3 through research grants. The department is

currently gathering consensus to shift to 1/3 school 2/3 research. This will put extra

pressure on the faculty acquisition of external funds. It is dear that the faculty and

students have engaged in this need to raise more graduate student funds, but they are

expecting (eventual) relief in the form of an increase in TA funding, under the belief that

enrollments will increase over the next few years, and provide further l)TO money.

Overall, the challenge of DTO and confirmation of current DTO budgets will rely on

sustained growth in the undergraduate program. The university has apparently negotiated

with the provincial government to extend the time frame to achieve the DTO targets, to

2010-1. 1. It is clear that the School has invested significant effort to create an outstanding

repertoire of outreach programs both to communicate the value of computer science to

potential students and to provide a communication vehicle with the general public. Based

on mostly anecdotal information, this program appears among the best in the country.

Recommendation 9:

The School, Faculty, and University together should articulate

goals for a healthy balance of relative complement sizes for faculty, staff, graduate

students, and undergraduate students. It is expected that actual numbers will fluctuate

over time and that changes to opportunities and priorities will require new goals to be

set. Thus the numbers should be re-examined periodically, perhaps as part of the

School's three-year planning exercises.

4 Funding of Graduate Students

A significant concern within the school is the pressure on budgets to support graduate

students. The shift to increase support from research grants will put extra pressure on the

faculty to acquire external funds. Most faculty members appear to have accepted this

need, and they have begun to formulate plans to apply for NSERC Strategic Grants,

industrially-oriented grants (primarily through NSERC or MITACS), support from the

Community Endowment Trust Fund, and funds from other sources. Apparently graduate

students have also been alerted to the need to find

OCW

research support, and several told

us that they were working with their supervisors to draft grant applications and to meet

with potential industrial sponsors. The intentions are clearly well-founded, and it is now a

matter of execution to secure the necessary funding.

Recommendation 10:

Although there is benefit in learning how to apply for funding

support while being a graduate student, care should be taken that this activity does not

dominate the graduate students' educational experience nor detract from their

research endeavours.

5 Increasing External Research Funding

Given the University's recently published academic plan and the

VP

Research Strategic

Research Plan, there is a top down emphasis on increasing the intensity of research at

SFU. This implies higher expectations for research funding.

The School is doing relatively well in terms of NSERC funding. with 40 oi46 regular

full time research faculty currently holding some level of NSERC Discovery Grant.

Tables 2-4 below, created by using the NSERC Awards Engine, summarizes the relative

success in NSERC Grant Selection Committees over the last five

y

ears. indicative of the

School's research success, note the relative standing with respect to other Computer

Science departments in Canada. Confirming the School's strengths, performance over the

last five years has been stronger in GSC

33

1.

.

/5.

10

---

S

GSC 330

#

$

$%

Average Award

Toronto

44

1,801,053

9.76

40.933

Waterloo

53

1,688,895

9.15

31.866

Alberta

49

1,570.724

8.51

32,056

UBC

31

1,066.344

5.78

34,398

Concordia

40

1,019,572

5.52

25,489

Victoria

23

678.471

3.68

29,499

SFU

22

650,468

3.52

29,567

McGill

15

442,154

2.40

29,477

Montreal

17

443,623

2.40

26.095

Table 2. Relative success in GSC 330

is

GSC 331

$

$%

Average Award

Toronto

66

3,176.319

13.78

48,126

Waterloo

76

2,297,378

9.97

30.229

SFU

67

1,819.704

7.89

27.160

McGill

37

1,467,580

6.37

39,664

UBC

39

1,459,050

6.33

37,412

Montreal

36

1.202,117

5.21

33,392

Alberta

32

915.553

3.97

28,611

Concordia

22

1751,404

3.26

34.155

Victoria

14

394,150

1.71

28,154

Table 3. Relative success in GSC 33 1

GSC330+331

$

Toronto

4,977.372

Waterloo

3.986.273

Concordia

2,770.976

UBC

2,525,394

Alberta

2,4861277

SFU

2,470,172

McGill

1,909.734

Montreal

1.654,740

Victoria

1.072,621

Table 4. Relative success in both GSC 330 and 331 combined

Note from Table 4 that the overall funding

from

NSERC Discovery Grants is very good

in comparison to other Canadian Computer Science departments (cvcn ignoring

department sizes).

. In addition to this strong indication from NSERC Discovery Grants. the University's

g

rant tracking system shows quite strong research funding in a variety of other areas,

including the following as well as a collection of other industrial sources:

---

MTI - Millenium Technologies, Inc.

TELE - Telelcarning Network

BC Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development

SSHRC - TNE Public Outreach Grants

MITACS - NCE

COGENT - Cogent Chipwarc, Inc.

GEOIDE - Geomatics for informed Decisions

PRECARN - IRIS

SW - Silent Wireless Systems

SAlT - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Constraintworks

IBM Student Scholars

HP - Hewlett Packard

The SFU Community Trust Endowment Fund is also believed to be a ready local source

of funds, but with some concern over how proposals would align with the Strategic

Research Plan document, and how the adjudication will be managed (as mentioned in

Section 2.2). The overall success of the pro

CP

g

ram and the level of participation within

Computing Science will be better understood after the first couple of rounds of uuinding.

In light of increased pressure to raise funding support for graduate students, it is

important to recognize that most of the new funding available outside of the NSERC

Discovery Grants program is coupled with an industrial component, e.g., the industrial

matching requirements of MITACS. Nevertheless, we note that many researchers who

apply for funding through GSC 331 have been successful in obtaining such funds.

S

the database and bioinforinatics groups are already working with collaborators that have

funding from the Michael Smith Foundation. The existence of these clusters may well

help individual facult

y

members and small groups to secure new funding. However, not

every cluster has senior faculty members who assume mentoring roles, and as a result

some opportunities may be missed.

Recommendation

ii: The School, potentially together with other units within the

University, should investigate how to re-institute the industrial outreach and

matchmaking role formerly provided by the School's Centre for Systems Science.

Recommendation

12: The University/industry Liaison Office should re-examine its

procedures with a view to streamline negotiations on industry funding (e.g., by

working with representatives of the IT industry to simplify intellectual property and

overhead agreements).

Recommendation 13:

The School should consider ways to enhance its research clusters

so that they function even more effectively as meaningful units, and it should explore

the creation of a School based research centre that could provide the clusters leverage

their common strengths to seek funding opportunities.

Recommendation 14:

The School should devise strategies to improve the collaborative

working environment so that it encoura g

es senior faculty to seek external funding and

to work with junior faculty to assist them to seek funding.

S

6

Alternative Academic Structure(s)

For the School to function effectively, it needs to share common goals and aspirations

with the Faculty within which it is situated. Furthermore, it is important that the

evaluation of its research and teaching be seen to be based on a deep understanding of the

discipline of computing science.

Both the Dean of Applied Science and the members of the School agreed that the School

does not embrace a common vision with FAS. On top of that, the recent push to establish

a program at Surrey appears to have pitted the School's interests against those of the

School of interactive Arts and Technology, on more than one occasion.

Among the Schools within the Faculty, Engineering Science appears to be the only

natural partner. This is not to deny that successful links have been created with other

schools within FAS. Indeed with encouragement and support from the Dean's office,

Computing Science is developing multidisciplinary undergraduate programs in

multimedia arts and technology (with Interactive Arts and Technology), health

information systems (with Communication), and information technology programming

(with Engineering Science and Interactive Arts and Technology).

7

In addition, research

clusters have been formed in biomedical engineering (with Engineering Science and

Kinesiology) and in human machine interaction (with Communication and Interactive

Arts and Technology).8

Facult y

of Applied Sciences, Academic Plan 2004-2007

FAS Research Review (brochure).

ll.

13

---

However, it is important to emphasize that additional links will require even more energy

and resources to create and support than would he the case for more traditional

multidisciplinary activities. Outside the Faculty, Mathematics is a natural partner, and

many members of Computing Science enjoy close collaborations with members of that

department. Elsewhere, experimental computer scientists and those involved in data

mining often have close collaborations with specialists from Statistics, and applied

computer scientists often find collaborations with physical and life scientists (historically

in physics and more recently in biology), or with health scientists (medical imaging). In

fact, collaborations with faculty members in the natural sciences have included financial

support for Computing Science graduate students from natural science research grants. At

SFU there may also be a natural synergy for joint undergraduate or graduate programs

with Business, but there is little apparent research interest within the School in this

discipline.

Considering previously noted communications difficulties, it may well be the case that

members of the School do not understand the FAS vision. Many of them view the Faculty

as a forced marriage of disparate disciplines, with no common focus. They also do not

believe that faculty members within the Faculty but outside of Computing Science and

Engineering Science are well-equipped to judge the merits of proposed research projects,

proposed curricula, or the quality of the achievements of computing scientists (whether

being assessed for hiring, for promotion and tenure, or for awards). The result is that the

support for FAS within the School is either weak or ambivalent.

Recommendation 15:

The School should articulate one or more potential alternative

?

Faculty structures, which can be assessed for feasibility, costs, and bencuits.

Recommendation 16:

In collaboration with the SlAT and CS Directors or their

representatives), the Dean should establish a forum in which researchers from

Interactive Arts and Technology and Computing Science meet

10

discuss common

research problems in order to foster

g

reater collaboration. Where appropriate, internal

funding should be made available to seed interesting collaborative projects.

7 Strategic Directions and Focus for the Undergraduate

Programs

It will continue to be difficult for the School to devise and implement effective strategic

plans under the current high levels of uncertainty and scope for miscommunication. In

terms of strategic planning, one problem is the lack of easily accessible information about

shifting student enrolments, such as the breakdown of students according to course and

majors. As a result, determining important trends among the cxisting student population

is limited, since current student information systems do not support the generation of the

kind of reports that would assist the planning process within academic units.

7.1 Current Situation

Currently. the School offers several high quality programs in Computing Science. These

are coherent and sound programs of study that bring considerable value to the students.

During our visit it became abundantly evident that the majority of the faculty and support

.

14 ?

/7.

---

.

staff considered the teaching programs to be an important endeavor of the School and that

the undergraduate students were important stakeholders.

Most programs offered by the School are fairly traditional, with a strong technical

computer science focus that is highly aligned with the expertise within the School. As a

result the Computing Science programs represent a major strength and important

capability for SFU.

The School has also developed several novel initiatives in a diverse array of emerging

areas, such as computational biology and biochemistry, cognitive science, multimedia,

information systems in business, geographic information science, and management and

systems science. These also align with existing and growing research expertise. At this

stage of the planning cycle, a more thorough evaluation of the potential and early success

Of these directions may be beneficial.

Although the Computer Science Accreditation Council is a national standards

accreditation body in Canada, no computing programs at SFU are currently accredited.

In fact, currently no university degree programs in British Columbia are accredited by

CSAC. We note, however, that two joint programs with Business, the MIS Concentration

with the Bachelor of Business Administration Major, and the Joint Major in Business and

Computing Science, have been previously accredited.

9

Thus the recommended in-depth

review may perhaps be pursued in the context of seeking accreditation.

.

?

In terms of identifying weaknesses of the current programs, it became clear that more

documentation concerning the objectives and outcomes of each program needs to be

developed. When the School had a smaller course offering and tvcr faculty members,

maintaining consistency and coherence could be achieved informally. However with the

recent faculty expansion and increased potential loss of knowledge built up over the years

through faculty retirements and turnover, it is increasing important for the School to

articulate its objectives with respect to undergraduate programs.

For example, we received several comments from various groups that course offerings in

the systems area were weak in comparison with other areas. Such statements are based on

many unstated assumptions and value judgments, which clearly illustrate that without

stated objectives it is difficult to identify and subsequently address areas of weakness

effectively in the undergraduate program. On the other hand, once weaknesses are

identified, they can be prioritized and strategies can he developed to address the high

priority weaknesses in teaching programs. (In the case of enhancing systems offerings in

the undergraduate program, there remain several challenges, including the difficulty of

attracting additional high quality faculty to teach in areas suffering global skill

shortages.)

Recommendation

17: The School should consider applying to CSAC for accreditation.

This can he used both as a means to review and evaluate the Computing Science

degree and the multi-disciplinary programs offered by the School against the School's

strategic objectives, and as another recruiting tool in support of the claim that

undergraduates are well-prepared to become software professionals.

.

Recommendation 18:

The School should articulate clear goals for each program at each

campus, including target audiences and curricular objectives. These goals should be

incorporated into recruiting and planning documents. in this way the School can

ensure that potential student pathways will lead to the attainment of the academic

objectives.

Recommendation 19:

The School should improve quality assurance mechanisms within

the School by considering the following additional measures: (i) develop explicit

links between program/courses and objectives/outcomes, (ii) establish

industry/external advisory panels where appropriate for key pro

g

rams, and (iii) ensure

that curriculum design reflects and achieves the educational objectives and outcomes

by having the designers/maintainers of individual courses identify the objectives arid

outcomes to which they contribute.

7.2 Future Possibilities

It is expected that student numbers in Computing Science and related degree programs

will increase over the next few years. What is less clear are the specific areas of growth.

Early indications are that the core areas evident in the School's existing degree programs,

such as software engineering, systems and architectures, and information systems, will

continue to be of major significance in the new areas of growth. in addition, other areas

such as enterprise systems, information system management, c-business, and web

technologies could provide significant opportunity for growth; however the School does

not currently have the requisite expertise or interest in many of these areas.

Clearly, no academic unit can cover the full range of potential and growing computing

related topics, therefore it is important that, for the next phase of growth in student

numbers, the School develop a set of stated objectives for its teaching programs together

with strategies which will allow it to reach the stated objectives. The School has

demonstrated its capacity to conduct strategic planning successfully, with its student

recruitment in light of the DTO being just one example of its effective response to

internal and external pressures and opportunities.

A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunity and Threats (SWOT) analysis will lead the School

to develop a better understanding of global trends in undergraduate programs and also

identify a comprehensive set of local issues which will have an impact on future teaching

programs. This should include some emphasis on predicting the value and potential

growth of the joint undergraduate program with Zhejiang University. Such an analysis

will help develop effective plans and strategies. In addition, an analysis of competitor's

offerings will assist the School in developing new markets and new teaching programs.

Burnaby Campus:

The Burnaby campus already has a strong foundation upon which to

build. The review of current programs and a strategic analysis will help identify

appropriate areas to direct resources in the future and help develop effective strategies. In

particular, new undergraduate programs could be developed to meet the needs of

potential students and other stakeholders.

Surrey Campus:

The establishment of a viable program at Surrey is critical to the

School and to the Faculty. It has been decided by the central administration that this is to

be done by developing distinctive programs in IT and coherent cross disciplinar

y, studies

16 ?

/9.

.

---

.

with other groups at the Surrey campus such as SlAT. Business, Mathematics, and

Science. The Associate Director for CS Surrey has recently proposed one such program,

which is currently under consideration by the School. Such programs should be carefully

crafted to mcct the needs of the local community. A SWOT analysis will help develop

appropriate strategies that will lead to the achievement of the School and university

objectives.

Harbour Centre Campus:

The School has the opportunity to develop distinctive

programs in IT and coherent cross disciplinary studies with other groups at Harbour

Centre. Some potential programs could be developed in the management of information

technology, c-business, finance, marketing, management of human resources,

international business, and law. The potential student base

for

the Harbour Centre is

significantly different from that at Surrey and Burnaby, and as a result there would seem

to be significant opportunity, particularly in the arena of a course-work masters program.

Again, these programs should be carefully crafted to meet the needs of the local

community, and developed to meet the needs of potential students and other stakeholders.

Recommendation

20: In order for the School to be well placed for the next growth

phase in computing science, it should conduct a strategic analysis of its undergraduate

and coursework-based graduate programs. It will be important for the School to

ensure that its strengths are used effectively to pursue the opportunities that serve to

• ?

attain its objectives most appropriately.

8 Miscellaneous

There remain a few observations and recommendations that do not fit easil

y

within the

previous sections. These are addressed here.

8.1 Inter-campus infrastructure

It was repeatedly mentioned that one impediment in fostering closer tics between the

Burnaby and Surrey campuses was the length of time for students and faculty to travel

between them. This may well also become a problem with the campus at Harbour Centre

once Computing Science begins operations there.

Recommendation

21: If it has not yet done so, the University should investigate

instituting a shuttle bus service between the campuses, preferably scheduled to match

several class start and end times and avoiding times of maximal toad congestion. If

several runs are in place each day, class and meeting schedules should be arranged to

take maximum advantage of the possibility of using the shuttle.

8.2 Allocation of teaching resources

Even though the faculty on the Burnaby campus is apparently sufficiently large to cover

the teaching needs at the undergraduate and

g

raduate levels, there was still a need to

appoint 24 sessional instructors over the past three terms. It is always desirable to have

some sessional instruction so as to take advantage of the particular expertise of visiting

. ?

faculty members, to provide teaching experience for some of the senior doctoral students.

and to cover some holes in the available expertise of regular faculty members in the

17

?

or.

---

School. However, there has apparently been an annual shortfall in regular instructors to

teach during the summer term, especially in the systems areas.

Recommendation

22: The School should investigate the possibilit

y

of offering faculty

members the option to adopt an alternative lecturing schedule, such as teaching two

courses every other term for two years (i.e., instead of the lecturing schedule

following the traditional pattern of 2-1-0-2-1-0 or 1-2-0-1-2-0 for the fall, spring, and

summer terms respectively, some instructors might prefer to follow a co-op-like

pattern of 2-0-2-0-2-0 or 0-2-0-20-2). To encourage the temporary adoption of such

alternative schedules, the School should ensure that faculty members are not locked

into offering courses every (or even every other) summer term Should they wish to

change their patterns of teaching.

.

.

.

18

---

School of Computing Science

Simon Fraser University

Response to the Recommendations of the

External Reviewers

September 20, 2006

The School of Computing Science greatly appreciates the hard work and the constructive and

helpful recommendations of the External Reviewers, Professors Randy Goebel (University of

Alberta), Frank Tompa (University of Waterloo'), and Mary-Anne Williams (University of

Technology, Sydney).

1 Introduction

The School is pleased with the recognition by the External Reviewers that Computing Science

has attained "incredible success" in sustaining the CS major numbers at a time when most

schools in North America and elsewhere have seen enrolments fall dramatically over the last

three years. We believe that our success in terms of enrolments can be attributed to our

exceptional recruiting efforts and the diversification of our faculty expertise and programs. This

allows us to offer a wide range of courses that has proven to benefit both the undergraduate and

graduate students. This has been confirmed by our enrolment numbers and in conversations with

students, where it was noted by the reviewers that there was uniform praise regarding the

perception of the quality of our programs.

The worldwide decrease in CS enrolments has been caused by the so-called "Dot-Corn Crash" in

2000-2002, followed by the increased media attention on "outsourcing," both of which created a

strong public perception that there was no hope for employment in the technology sector.

However, as the External Reviewers also note, there is growing evidence that the demand for

computer science graduates is steadily growing and already exceeds the demand of 1999.

Therefore.

we

believe that the School needs to be well prepared for the generally expected

increase in CS enrolments in the near future.

. The reviewers acknowled

g

e that, with the influx of new faculty members, we have significantly

enhanced the teaching and research capabilities of the School, reinforced several areas of

existing strength, and created several new areas of expertise in emerging areas ot growing global

1

---

.

interest. Coupled with this growth it was noted that the overall funding from NSERC Discovery

Grants is very good in comparison to other Canadian Computer Science departments, which

demonstrates the high quality of our research programs and level of commitment of our faculty

members and students.

The External Review was guided by the following focus questions:

a) "Evaluate the 'Double the Opportunities' enrolments in undergraduate and graduate

Computing Science programs and provide advice on ways of increasing these numbers in

the foreseeable future;

h) Provide advice on ways of securing sustainable financial support for graduate students at

a level that is competitive with other Computer Science departments at major Canadian

universities;

C)

Suggest opportunities for increasing external research ftinding through major research

grants for strategic research projects, specifically in interdisciplinary research and priority

areas as outlined in SFU's Strategic Research Plan;

d) Suggest alternative academic structure(s) that, in the context of a restructuring of the

Faculties of the university, make the most sense with respect to the needs and interests of

the School of Computing Science;

C)

?

Suggest possible strategic directions and focus for the undergraduate program, in light of

current strengths and weaknesses, and in light of chan

?

ges in the academic discipline. ?

"

0

The remainder of this document contains our responses to the individual recommendations,

structured based on the chapter headings used in the External Review Report. The live

recommendations considered to be most important by the reviewers are highlighted in the text in

bold font.

2 Working Environment

As the External Reviewers acknowledge, the general mood in the School is positive despite the

potentially disruptive impact of office relocations, new programs, new campuses, new faculty

members, and proposals for new Faculty structures. However, the explosive growth and

dynamics of the School has created considerable challenges in managing the change at all levels

of the School.

Recommendation I:

The Dean, the Director of the School, and the Associate Director for CSSurrey should

ensure that communications, consultation, and feedback channels among all interested

parties (and especially among these three individuals)

are well-established so that they

can build a shared understanding of priorities,

opportunities, concerns,

and financial

realities.

In response to the recommendation by the External Reviewers, various possibilities for more

direct and more frequent communication have been considered and pirliv already been

implemcntcd. As a direct result of this initiative and the good will on all three sides. the situation

2

---

has notably improved over the last few months. CS will continue to work toward improving

communication within the School's Executive and also between the Director of the School and

the Dean.

Recommendation 2:

The School should strive to improve communication. consultation. and feedback channels

among all faculty members, staff, and administrators within the School.

The School is now in the process of revising existing communication structures and practices for

consultation and feedback among faculty members, staff, and administrators, aiming at more

efficient and effective solutions. In particular, we are currentl

y

reviewing the Schools

Constitution and the School Council and Executive meeting structures. This will he the first step

to improve communication, at all levels, between staff and faculty members located at the two

CS campuses in Surrey and Burnaby.

Recommendation 3:

The School should introduce a mentoring program to help integrate new faculty

members into the School activities and to help them develop an understanding of the

School objectives, expectations, and how to access support and potential opportunities.

This is particularly vital at Surrey, where the infrastructure is much less well

established.

.

The School will in fact introduce a formal mentoring pro

g

ram. Each new faculty member will be

matched with a senior faculty member, if possible from their research cluster. One senior faculty

member will be assigned to oversee the mentoring program. As an additional resource (not only,

but also) for new faculty members, wikis have and will continue to be developed to assist new

and current faculty in various ways, such as the teaching wiki that we currently have in place.

Recommendation 4:

The School should reassess its current policies for allocating teaching opportunities and

responsibilities in order to ensure that an appropriate palette of courses is offered each term.

This should include a re-examination of the factors that motivate professors to offer 800-

level courses in preference to 700-level ones.

Members of the Undergraduate Program Committee (UPC) and Graduate Program Committee

(GPC) are currently examining all course offerings, enrollments, and redundancies in our

schedule in order to ensure that an appropriate variety of courses is offered every term. In

-particular, we want to offer more courses in the summer and more

70()

level courses on a regular

basis. For summer course offerings we are considering a new rotation scheme.

Recommendation

5:

The School should develop meaningful ways to encourage and recognize the scholarly

contributions of lecturers and senior lecturers.

Lecturers are currently provided a non-teaching semester every third year which can be used for

research. However, it is not presently a requirement of the position and is of less significance in

the periodic evaluation of performance than teaching histor

y

and administrative service. The

3

---

School, as per Recommendation 22, will be examining creative ways to allocate teaching to

better meet the needs of both faculty and the School.

3 Double the Opportunity Enrolments

Recommendation 6:

All graduate students should participate in TA training, which should attempt to prepare non-

native speakers of English and students with diverse undergraduate backgrounds to serve as

effective TAs.

The School will be enhancing and expanding its orientation program for all new graduate

students. The School currently encourages graduate students who wish to be sessional instructors

to complete introductory teaching programs offered by the Learning and Instructional

Development Centre and provides financial assistance for them to do so. The School is also

developing resources that provide guidance to graduate students in becoming effective teaching

assistants. The first of these resources will be introduced over the next year, beginning this fall.

In the format of the re-designed 891 course, which is mandatory for new graduate students, we

will have a component that specifically addresses training for TAs and a separate Component for

testing and improving language skills.

Recommendation

The effective recruiting

7:

?

methods for Burnaby should be expanded and adapted to

9

encompass candidates for the Surrey campus. CS recruiters should work closely with

recruiters for TechOne and Science Year One to present a harmonized, attractive

package.

As acknowledged in the review, we have established effective recruiting methods. We are

proactive in our recruitment efforts, and each year we explore and determine where we may

expand our outreach and recruitment activities. These efforts include ways to attract more

prospective students south of the Fraser River. We are also actively pursuing more effective

ways in which to collaborate with SFiJ Recruitment and SF!.) Surrey Recruitment.

Recommendation

8.

Care must be taken that the graduate students in Surrey continue to receive a worthwhile

graduate experience, including adequate access to lab facilities, exposure to academic visitors

(through seminars and sinail meetings), and broad exposure to the faculty and other graduate

students at SFU.

We plan to take various measures to ensure that graduate students in Surrey receive a worthwhile

graduate experience. The Surrey research labs will he integrated into the existing research

Clusters, which will strengthen interactions with faculty members, other graduate students, and

visiting researchers. The School will operate a research seminar series at the Surrey campus in

conjunction with its proposed Centre for Open Source Technology and Applications

Research. At least once each semester, the School will bring all graduate students to the Surrey

campus for a CMPT 891 research seminar.

4

---

S

In order to improve the access to seminars in Burnaby, we will be asking the University to

provide extra funding for the installation of an advanced video-confercncing system and access

grid nodes in our seminar rooms in both Burnaby and Surrey. This technical infrastructure is also

indispensable to support administrative meetings across the two campuses.

Recommendation 9:

The School, Faculty, and University together should articulate goals for a healthy balance of

relative complement sizes for faculty, staff, graduate students, and undergraduate students. It

is expected that actual numbers will fluctuate over time and that changes to opportunities and

priorities will require new goals to be set. Thus the numbers should be re-examined

periodically, perhaps as part of the School's three-year planning exercises.

The School will work together with the Faculty and the University to define goals kr the relative

numbers of faculty, staff, graduate, and undergraduate students. in order to meet the University's

goal of establishing strong Computing Science programs and presence in Surrey, we will require

funding for new tenure-track faculty positions as follows: 2 faculty members in 2007. 2 faculty

members in 2008 and 1 faculty member in 2009.

S

4

Funding of Graduate Students

Recommendation 10:

Although there is benefit in learning how to apply for funding support while being a graduate

student, care should be taken that this activity does not dominate the graduate students'

educational experience nor detract from their research endeavours.

The GPC has been developing a document that clearly spells out the expectations that the School

has of its new, incoming students. Furthermore, a wiki has been developed that clearly lays out

some of the expectations and responsibilities of both students and supervisors. The issue of grant

writing is one of the many issues that has been covered in these documents.

5 Increasing External Research Funding

Recommendation 11:

The School. potentially together with other units within the University, should investigate

how to re-institute the industrial outreach and matchmaking role formerly provided by the

School's Centre for Systems Science.

The School is currently developing an Industr

y

Relations Centre as part of its Three Year Plan to

?

explore industry relations at several levels, including the promotion of research collaborations as

?

0

well as provision of technical support for its graduate and undergraduate students. In addition. a

?

new Centre for Open Source Technology and Applications Research. located at the Surrey

5

---

S

campus, will specialize in industrial technology transfer in accordance with open source business

models.

Both centres will be led by faculty members with industry ties together with the Manager,

Academic and Financial Planning who will develop and implement the market strategy and

oversee the start-up. Initially, our current staff will provide administrative support for the

operations of the centres, but we foresee that by September 2007 a dedicated infrastructure will

be required, as the management of the centres becomes a fuiltirne activity. We will be looking to

the Vice-President Academic and the Faculty Dean to provide funding to hire the necessary staff

to run both centres.

Recommendation 12:

The University/Industry Liaison Office should re-examine its procedures with a view to

streamline negotiations on industry funding (e.g., by working with representatives of the IT

industry to simplify intellectual property and overhead agreements).

It is expected that the new Industry Relations Centre (see Recommendation 11) will coordinate

its activities with the University/Industry Liaison Office and that this relationship will be

mutually beneficial and streamline ncgotiatiors on industry funding.

Recommendation

The School should

13: ?

consider ways to enhance its research clusters so that they function

5

even more effectively as meaningful units, and it should explore the creation of a School

based research centre that could provide the clusters leverage their common strengths

to seek funding opportunities.

The School will explore innovative ways to strengthen its research clusters. As a first step, the

CS@Surrey research labs will also be assigned to clusters and meaningful names will be

developed to replace the current cluster numbers. The clusters will organize joint seminars in

order to stimulate collaborative research projects. The technical support for the clusters will be

improved by designating a specific Computing Science Technical Support (CSTS) staff member

to each cluster as a liason person. A School-based Research Centre will he established to support

the research clusters in leveraging their common strengths, especially for seeking external

research funding. For this purpose. the Research Centre is intended to have its own grant

facilitator to proactively assist the research clusters and faculty members of the School with

large interdisciplinary grant proposals.

The External Reviewers state that even though MITACS provides matchmaking support for

specific areas related to industrial mathematics, efforts to extend this form of outreach activity to

other areas within CS would likely pay dividends. Considering that the School already now

brings in $2,000,000 of external research funding per year and is planning to significantly

increase such funding, we will be asking the University for extra funding to hire a grant

facilitator exclusively for Computing Science.

ff

"I

---

.

Recommendation 14:

The School should devise strategies to improve the collaborative working environment so

that it encourages senior faculty to seek external funding and to work with junior faculty to

assist them to seek funding.

The planned new nientoring program (see Recommendation 3) will take place within the

clusters. This will build relationships and encourage senior faculty members to seek external

funding together with junior faculty members. Another improvement of the collaborative

working environment will result from the cluster-wide research seminars and further activities

coordinated by the new Research Centre.

6 Alternative Academic Structure(s)

Recommendation 15:

The School should articulate one or more potential alternative Faculty structures, which can

be assessed for feasibility, costs, and benefits.

The School is currently preparing a document critically analyzing potential altcrnativc Faculty

structures for Computing Science. This document will be used as input to the SFU Faculty

• ?

Restructuring initiative, should the current faculty structure be reconsidered.

Recommendation 16:

In collaboration with the STAT and CS Directors (Or their representatives), the Dean should

establish a forum in which researchers from Interactive Arts and Technology and Computing

Science meet to discuss common research problems in, order to foster greater collaboration.

Where appropriate, internal funding should be made available to seed interesting

collaborative projects.

The School would welcome the establishment of a 'forum within FAS where researchers from CS

and SlAT (and possibly also from other schools) discuss common research topics and explore

opportunities for collaborative projects.

7 Strategic Directions and Focus for the Undergraduate Programs

Recommendation 17:

The School should consider applying to CSAC for accreditation. This can be used both as a

means to review and evaluate the Computing Science degree and the multi-disciplinary

programs offered by the School against the School's strategic objectives, and as another

recruiting tool in support of the claim that undergraduates are well-prepared to become

software professionals.

The School will consider CSAC (Canadian Information Processing Society) accreditation ol our

programs. A member of the UPC will look into CSAC accreditation this year. In particular, we

MIA

7

---

.

want to know how far our current programs are from meeting their criteria. Knowing this, we

would be in a better position to make a strategic decision on seeking accreditation.

Recommendation 18:

The School should articulate clear goals for each program at each campus, including

target audiences and curricular objectives. These goals should be incorporated into

recruiting and planning documents. In this way the School can ensure that potential

student pathways will lead to the attainment of the academic objectives.

The School will develop clear goals for each of the existing and future new programs. including

target audiences and program objectives. This applies especially also to the new Computing

Science Major program to be offered at SFU Surrey and the program hr post-baccalaureate

students to be offered at SFU Vancouver. Learning objectives, including academic and career

outcomes and life learning options, will be identified for each academic pathway. Once

identified, they will be included in our program promotional material to clearly and distinctly

specify to prospective students what each route offers. The program goals will also direct the

ongoing re-design of our programs in order to make sure that they serve the changing needs of

their audiences.

Recommendation 19:

The School should improve quality assurance mechanisms within the School by considering

the

objectives/outcomes,

following additional

(ii)

measures:

establish industry/external

(i) develop explicit

advisory

links between

panels where

program/courses

appropriate for

and ?

40

key programs, and (iii) ensure that curriculum desi

g

n reflects and achieves the educational

objectives and outcomes by having the designers/maintainers of individual courses identify

the objectives and outcomes to which they contribute.

We have begun preliminary work on a template for writing course objeclivcs;'outcomcs. The

UPC will start with the lower division and create universal outlines for our courses (at a learning

outcomes level, not specifying administrative details). Once these exist, we can sensibly tackle

(i) and (iii) from this recommendation. The planned Industry Relation Centre (see

Recommendation 11) will also be used to meet part (ii) of this recommendation, i.e. forming an

industry advisory panel.

Recommendation 20:

In order for the School to be well placed for the next growth phase in computing science,

it

should conduct a strategic analysis of its undergraduate and coursework-based graduate

programs. It will be important for the School to ensure that its strengths are used effectively

to pursue the opportunities that serve to attain its objectives most appropriately.

A SWOT (Strcn2l.hs. \caknesscs. (1)portwitics. and Tiais) analysis will be conducted by the

UPC and GPC in order to assist our academic planning for each campus and to ensure we are

well positioned to meet the needs of our potential students and to recommend areas upon which

we can improve.

?

0

8

---

.

8 Miscellaneous

Recommendation 21:

If it has not yet done so, the University should investigate instituting a shuttle bus service

between the campuses, preferably scheduled to match several class start and end times and

avoiding times of maximal road congestion. If several runs are in place each day, class and

meeting schedules should be arranged to take maximum advantage of the possibility of using

the shuttle.

The School strongly supports the recommendation of establishing a shuttle service between the

Burnaby and Surrey campuses. Such a shuttle service would not only greatly strengthen

collaborations in research, teaching, and administration across the two campuses but it would

allow for an easier and less expensive commute for both undergraduate and graduate students,

thus helping to integrate the two campuses.

Recommendation 22:

The School should investigate the possibility of offering faculty members the option to adopt

an alternative lecturing schedule, such as teaching two courses every other term for two years

(i.e., instead of the lecturing schedule following the traditional pattern of 2-1-0-2-1-0 or 1-2-

0-1-2-0 for the fall, spring, and summer terms respectively, some instructors might prefer to

. follow a co-op-like pattern of 2-0-2-0-2-0 or 0-2-0-2-0-2). To encourage the temporary

adoption of such alternative schedules, the School should ensure that faculty members arc not

locked into offering courses every (or even every other) summer term should they wish to

change their patterns of teaching.

The School will be exploring innovative ways to combine faculty research activities with

teaching commitments in a way that allows the School to distribute the teaching of its continuing

faculty more equally over all semesters. However the goal will be not only to improve the

School's ability to have continuing faculty teach in all semesters, but to provide more

opportunities for non-teaching semesters when research may be more readily conducted.

9

---

MEMORANDUM

?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

?

FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCES

DATE:

December 1, 2006

TO: ?

Bill Krane. Associate Vice-President Academic

FROM:

Brian Lewis, Dean, Faculty of Applied Sciences

RE:

?

External Review - School of Computing Science

This was a thorough and capable review. I agree with most of the recommendations and note

that considerable progress has been made in response to them, as described by the School in

its document.

• ?

I note specifically that in response to the recommendations:

• a mentoring program for new faculty will be implemented:

• the course schedule is being optimized for undergraduate students;

• a high quality experience in the new graduate program at Surrey is a priority for the

School:

• increased interest in industrial outreach will he facilitated through structures and

centres in the School;

• there will he efforts to strengthen research links and clusters within the School:

• CSAC accreditation is being explored;

• the goals. outcomes and pathways open to students in CS will be more clearly

articulated in documents;

• that a SWOT analysis will be conducted by undergraduate and graduate committees to

guide program development.

In addition to these positive steps I note the following general considerations. which merit

further reflection.

• The reviewers note that Computing Science has been successful in maintaining

student enrollment in the face of precipitous drops elsewhere in North America. I

agree. Nevertheless, funding has been flowed to the School and space has been

allocated in anticipation of far greater numbers. CS must continue to work

. ?

extraordinarily hard to recruit, and to provide programs which will he attractive to

diverse groups of students. Will targets be reached, or were the

y

too ambitious? This

question remains open. and it is linked to the question of resources.

.

31

---

As CS has grown dramatically, communication and governance challenges—both

internal and external—have grown with it. as noted by the review. Further there has

been a dramatic increase in research faculty in diverse areas, and the research and

teaching interests of the expanding faculty are evolving. The current University

initiative looking at structures and possible faculty restructuring provides an

opportunity for CS to consider its own structure, assessing it against its rapid

expansion, new administrative challenges, the research interests of the faculty,

changes in the academic discipline, and new opportunities.

Brian Lewis

Dean

Faculty of Applied Sciences

BL/lc

cc: U. Glaesser. Director. School of Computing Science

.

9