MEMORANDUM

ATTENTION

F

R

OM

O

I

,'

I

,'

I

CI

i 0

1,' '1'111

'.

VI

C

l

i

-

I

'

IU

':S

ll

k,N

T,

t\CAD

I

':

~

II

C:

l

I

ND

I'll

OVOS

T

8888

Univcr:c;il

'Y

D

riv

e,

I

~u

rnab

y,

B

e

C

an

:

ld

a

V5

/

\

IS6

S

(:

na

r

c

J

o

n

D

riv

e

r

,

V

i

cc

~

Pf(

;

;;i

d

cnr

,

:

\

cadcmic

~

11Id

Pro

vost,

and

e

h

:

}i!"

,

SCU

P

"

I

'

I

':

L

: 778.782.3925

!-'

j

\X:

7i8.782

.

5876

DATE

Novc

mb

c

r

1

5,20

10

PAGES

1

/2

S.10-146

vpaC:ld

@~

fu

.ca

w\Vw.~

fl1

.cl.1

v

p

:lc1.

d

c

mi

c

RE:

I

'nc

u

l

t

y

of

:

\ppli

cd

Sc

i

e

n

cc;;:

1

':

x

l

t;

f1I

a

l

R

e

vi

ew

R

e

port

ofSc

i1

oo]

of

l

~

n

g

i1H.

:

(:

rin

'

~'

(

i

e

ll

Cj.(

S

C

U

P

10

-

7

9

)

The Senate

C

OIlI1J'\itt

cc

u

n

Univ

e

r

s

i

ty

J

Jrioritic

s

(SCU

P

)

h

.\s rcv

i

(;wc

d

t

h

e Exte

rn

.

R

.. cvic

w

F

lcport on

til

t..:

Sel

l

oo

l

of

Engint..:c

rin

g Science

,

t

oget

h

e

r

w

i

t

h

respo

n

ses

Fro

ln

t

h

e

Sc

hoo

l

,

tlt

t..:

Dean

of

Appli

e

d

Sc

i

ences

an

d

input

fi'olll

t

h

e

A

ssoc

ia

te

Vi

ce

Pr

es

id

ent. A

c

ade

mi

c.

Motion:

That Senate approve the recornlllcndatioll fronl

t

he

Se

n

ate

C0111111ittee

o

n

University

Prioriti

es

to

inlpl

elne

nt

the A

c

tion

P

lan

for the

S

c

h

oo

l

of

Engincer

in

g

Sci

e

n

ce

t

ha

t

resulted fronl its

E

xternal Revi

ew.

F

o

lh

n

;

ving th

e s

ite v

i

sit the

R

e

por

t

or [he

Ex

t

er

n

<

11

r

t

c

vie\v

'

T

\;

a

t

tl*

fo

r

the Sc

h

ool

of EtlgilH.

.:e

ring

Sciellce

was

s

uhmi

tte

d

i

ll

J lin

e

20

1

0.

After the

R

e

port wa

s

received

a

meeting

W

'

I

S

held with

th

L'

1)

t.:

:l1I of Applied

Sc

i

e

n

ces

th

e

Director

of

the

Sc

h

oo

l

<lnd

the

D

irecto

r

o

f

A

G

H

.

.iI..'

rni

c

Pla

n

n

ing (V

PA

)

t

o con

s

id

e

r

t

h

c

re

co

lTllll

c

nd

~

ltion

s.

Th

e Sc

ho

ol tht.:n

prcpa

r

ed an A

c

tiun

Plan

ba

sc

d

on

the

R

c

p

o

r

t and

r

h

cse

di

sc

li

ss

i

o

ll

s.

The Acti

o

n

Pla

n wa

s

r

h

e

ll

s

uh

mit

t

e

d

to t

h

e

Dean

in

Octo

h

e

r

20

10. Th

c

D

ea

n

11

;

.

1

5

e

ndor

sed

thi

s

A

c

tion

P

lan.

Th

e

r

z.cvicw

.Te

all! Illcr

nhc

r

s

s

tated t

h

e

lt

t

h

at 'ill

t

h

e facc of

I

11;.111

Y c

h

al

l

c

n

gcs,E

N

SC

h

~

I

S

;'

I

c

h

i

eved

s

u

ccess

ill

IIlany a

r

eas'.

'"

rit

e

'T

ea

m \\

'c

n

t

on

t.o

i

dclltity

st

r

e

ng

t

h

s

;.lnd \

.

vc

aktl

esses

in the

und

e

r

gradumc

,

g

r

aduate <md

r

cse

ar

c

h

"1

1"C

<lS

<

lIld r

cco

llllll

c

lH.lt.:d

a

Ilutllh

c

r

of

i

lllpr

ovc

m

e

nt

s f()r c<lc

h

arca.

SCU

P

rc

c

OII"IlIl

l'

lld

s

to

Scn;ltl'

1"l1

(lt

Sc

h

oo

l

of

Enginee

rin

g

Sc

i

~

n

c

c

he

adv

i

sed

r.o

pur

s

LH

'::

t:h~

A

c

t

i

on

P

Lm

.

Attachments:

1.

D

e

p

art

l

ll

C

ll

t

of

Sc

ho

ol

o

f

Ellgillt..:er

in

g

Sc

i

e

n

ce -

A

ct

i

o

n Plan

2.

Extend

l

~cvicw

R

e

pDrt

-

JUll

C, 2

010

S

I

MON

I

'

RA

S

E

R

UN

I

VER

S

IT

Y

T

H

INKIN

G

OF

THE

WORL

D

---

*

External Review Team:

Javad Mostaghimi

(Chair): Distinguished Professor in Plasma Engineering, Director, Centre for

Advanced

Coating Technologies, Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, University of Toronto

Nadia Bhuiyan:

Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Director,

Master of Aerospace Engineering Program, Associate Director, Concordia Institute of Aerospace and

Design Innovation, Concordia University

Shankar P. Bhattacharyya:

Professor, Department of Electrical Engineeling, Texas A & M University

CC

Nirnal Rajapakse, Dean of Applied Sciences

Mehrdad Saif - Director, School of Engineering Science

2

---

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE

Submitted by

Dr. Javad Mostaghimi, University

of Toronto (Chair)

Dr. Shankar Bhattacharyya, Texas A&M University

Dr. Nadia

Bhuiyan~

Concordia University

---

Table of Contents

INTRODUC'"fION

..............................................................................................................

3

A. QUALITY OF UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE EDUCATION .................. 4

B. UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT EXPERIENCE ..................................................... 13

C. MECHATRONIC SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND BIOMED OPTION ............... 16

D.

GRADUATE

PROGRAM

...........................................................................................

21

E~.

RESEARCI-f

ENTERPRISE

........................................................................................

25

F. ENGAGEMENT WITH THE LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ... 29

O. OTHER COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 30

CLOSING REMARKS ..................................................................................................... 31

2

---

INTRODUCTION

The School of Engineering Science (ENSC) at Simon Fraser University (SFU) has undergone

many changes in recent years. This has created many challenges as well as nlany opportunities.

These

m~jor

changes are the result of the Double the Opportunity (DTO) initiative, which started

in the fall

of 2002. This external review was conducted in order to assess the quality of the

ENSC programs. the quality of faculty research, the role of Department 111embers in the

adnlinistration

of the School, and the conduciveness of the environment to the attainment of the

objectives

of the Depal1ment.

A

set of six issues of particular interest to the School \vere outlined

as

being the most important areas to assess.

In this report,

we will provide our evaluation of these

issues~

draw out their strengths and

weaknesses, and

we will then present our recommendations on the future directions that we feel

should be taken by the School.

This review was made possible through a three-day visit to SFU fronl April 7-9. 201

O~

where we

visited both the Burnaby and Surrey campuses, and 111et with faculty, staff, and students. In order

to

complete this review, we were also provided with various reports which we reviewed prior to

the visit.

While the visit was quite intensive, it was by no means an exhaustive review of the

School; in light of this, the committee hopes to have addressed the requirements of the Ternls of

Reference in as much detail as possible, and as objectively as possible.

\Ve

vvould like to thank Dr. Glynn Nichols, Director of Acadenlic Planning

&

Budgeting. for

organizing our visit to sru. We would also like to thank all 111cmbers of SFU that have taken the

time to meet with us, provide us with information, and offer their help. insights and support

before, during, and after our visit.

Very

special thanks go to the internal rnembcr of our

cOlunlittee, Dr. Zc-Nian Li fr0111 Conlputing Science, who provided us with much help and

wisdom throughout our visit. His input was invaluable during our visit.

J

---

The follo\ving sections describe our assessment of six issues considered to be of importance to

the School.

A. QUALITY OF UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE EDUCATION

Undergraduate Program

The School of Engineering Science offers two undergraduate programs, the Engineering Science

(ENSC) Program, offered at SFU Burnaby, and the Mechatronic Systems Engineering (MSE)

program, offered at SFU Surrey. In this section of the report, we will outline what we viewed as

being

the strengths and weaknesses of the undergraduate programs. In order to gather data and

information in this section we

met with the following groups:

biomedical~

communications.

microelectronics. systems,

and mechatronics, as well as the ENSC lecturers. the co-op and

recruitment team, the office and technical support staff, and undergraduate and graduate

students.

Strengths

The ENSC undergraduate programs have seen a large increase in enrolment due to the Double

the Opportunity (DTO) initiative. The consequences of this initiative have been manifold. First.

the

School has seen an increase in its enrolment from 490 students to 1137 since 2002, which has

been the major positive outcome of this initiative.

Another impact of the DTO initiative on the undergraduate prograIll is that class sizes

have increased. Increased enrolment will also cause multiple offerings of courses. This in turn

will give students greater flexibility to stay \vithin the prescribed course

sequence. thereby

shortening the tinle required to graduate.

One of the strengths of the curriculum offered in the ENSC is that it has a strong high

technology focus, with specializations in electronics

engineering~

computer

engineering~

engineering physics, systems, biomedical engineering, and mechatronic systenls engineering.

One of the unique aspects of this progrrul1 is the open lab concept. where teaching

laboratories are open to students around the clock.

The students highly fippreciatc the llcxibility

offered by this setup.

4

---

Another strength of the program is the mandatory co-op program, which is a requiren1cnt

for the undergraduate degree in

ENSC. Students must take a mininlunl of 3 co-op terms. The

program gives students excellent experience and an edge over students who have not been

exposed to industrial settings. Although it is becoming increasingly challenging

to find \-vork

ternlS for students, given the large influx of students due to the DTO progranl. and the limited

nunlbers

of co-op coordinators for ENSC, it still remains an essential aspect to the undergraduate

program. With the adverse impact

of the economic crisis, creative solutions are being sought by

the co-op staff to deal with the large number of work terms

needed~

such as having professors

hire students to work on projects, sending students on overseas work terms or

exchanges~

etc.

Mandatory tutorials will be put in place for each technical course

in the program, to be

taught by the instructor. This will be especially beneficial for those students who may require

further assistance in keeping up with the Honours-level program. This may help reduce the

attrition rates.

Another strength

of the program is the intensive Communication Program that ,vas

designed to hone the students' skills in problem analysis and critical thinking, and

conl111unication in oral, written, and graphical form, in individual and

in teanl settings. In every

year of the program, a different course is offered which is designed to conlplelncnt a technical

course, thus allowing the student to directly apply the communications course to an engineering

course. A total

of 5 courses are required as part of the undergraduate program. It appears that this

progran1 has benefitted the students: it has been said that the industry tends

to hire more students

from

SFU than from other local universities.

The Mechatronics and Systems Engineering (MSE) program is excellent. I t has seen

outstanding results in a short period

of tilne under the leadership and dedication of Dr. Farid

Golnaraghi. There are currently

10 faculty Inenlbers and collectively they have brought in over

$5.5 million in research funding. In just a Inatter of three years, the program has approximately

250 undergraduate students and 43 graduate students. Our visit to the Surrey canlpus left us

extreJnely impressed with

lTIany aspects of the progranl. The faculty menlhers are enthusiastic

and energetic and have dedicated themselves to ensuring the success

of the program through

courses. lab setup, and active recruiting. While the

MSE is sorely lacking in space. the faculty.

staff, and students exude optin1ism, satisfaction and nluch energy. The l!nrolment statistics and

the increase in faculty

in this progralTI speak to its success. Once again it should be noted that the

5

---

evolution of the program on the Surrey campus took place in a short period of time of only 3

years.

Sunlmary of Strengths:

Q Mandatory co-op for all students.

• High-tech focus in curriculum.

• Open-lab concept.

o Excellent MSE program.

• Integration of communication progralTI.

e Increasing enrolment.

• Mandatory tutorials for technical courses.

Weaknesses

The effects of the DTO initiative are both positive and negative. In this section. we discuss the

negative inlpacts. While the School has beconle much larger in size, as hoped, this is countered

by the fact that the progratTI is no longer an elite progranl since the quality, academic

background, and strengths

of the incoming students is now quite varied. The admission average

fronl high school applicants

is 80%, with a recently reduced requirenlent of maintaining a 2.0

OPA in order to stay in the program. Thus, the uniqueness of the elite program has considerably

been diffused, and

the perception of the school as one of high repute, has changed.

Although a relatively major revision was implemented

in 2006 after the DTO initiative, a

nlajor overhaul

to the current curriculum has not been done for 15 years. Since the curriculum

\-vas originally designed for high quality students, the content of the program is demanding and

thus does not cater to the large percentage of students with weaker averages. As a result.. the

attrition rates are quite high in later years of the program: the attrition rate frOtl1 the first to

second year is

300/0

and as high as 50% of students leave the program after 3 years.

Fortunately~

a cOlTItnittee has been formed to revise and update the curriculUll1 in hopes of reducing attrition

rates.

One of the major problems currently facing ENSC is the impact that budget cuts have had

on the teaching assistant (T A) budget. The amount of T A support provided to instructors in

ENSC has been reduced

by

67% ($/student), and this, given a

92%)

increase in undergraduate

6

---

enrolment. This has two impacts. Firstly, insufficient TA support means that the faculty members

lack

the resources to assist them in their courses, which is signiticant given that the

~Iass

sizes

have become quite large: as a result professors and lecturers have to find ways to help reduce the

burden

of their TA's, for example, by offering fewer assignments, or correcting only half of the

questions assigned on a particular assignment, or putting more students per group for labs.

This~

in our view, highly compromises the quality of the education offered at the ENSC. However,

there seems to

be no other way to deal with this issue if more TA'ships are not allocated to the

ENSC. The other impact is on funding of graduate students, which we will discuss in the next

section.

In our opinion, the lack of sufficient number of T A's has a serious negative impact on

the ENSC and its budget should be considerably increased.

While the open-lab concept described earlier is highly regarded

by the faculty and

students, there have been many complaints about the maintenance of the equiplnent. Students

have complained about equipment failing, or malfunctioning

of equipment at the hands of less

serious, less experienced students, and so on. Since the teaching labs are critical, this poses a

serious

problen1. This is again related to budget cuts which do not make allowances lor much

needed equipment maintenance and renewal in engineering labs. Given that a quality engineering

education is highly dependent on experimental work done

in laboratories, this issue should be

given serious attention, especially because the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board

(CEAB) will consider poorly maintained labs to be a major weakness of the ENSC. which may

negatively affect the accreditation of the programs.

The large

class sizes resulting from the influx of students has caused probleills. both for

students and teachers. The students do not feel connected to their

teachers~

do not feel that they

are maximizing their learning experience, and often do not feel the need to go to class as they are

lost in a sea of students. Teachers complain about the low rate of atlendance in lectures, and this

Jllay be one reason for this. This problenl may be dealt with by cutting the classes in half, thus

offering t\"O sections of the sanle course. However, in S0J11e cases, reducing a class of 200

students down to

100

J11ay not necessarily address the problenls associated with large classes.

The

ENSC provides much flexibility in completing the undergraduate degree in that

students can take courses

in the sequence that suits them best, and they can also take tnare than

the nlinimum nunlber

of mandatory co-op work terms. While this has its advantages in terms nf

flexibility

~

the big disadvantage is that students end up conlpleting their degree on average ill

7

---

15.5 semesters in 2009 because they often have to wait a full year to take a required course

which

may not be available, and they tend to faB out of sequence. The result of long graduation

times

does not reflect well on the

School~

the typical completion tilne for mandatory co-op

programs is

14

semesters.

In a related issue, the number of co-op placements from industry has dropped by

approximately 260/0. This is creating a major challenge given the sharp increase in enrolment

expected in the COining years, and the large number of students already in the program. students

who are not placed in a work-term may considerably delay their graduation. This can be avoided

to

sonle degree

j

f the co-op staff is increased in order to support the students.

The availability of courses is another problem. Required courses are

not

always available

on a regular basis, Inostly due to the lack of resources.

The Biomedical Option has recently been facing problems of enrolment. Currently, only

30 or so students are enrolled in this program. While the program is excellent. with a high level

of involvement from the Faculty of Applied Sciences, the decline in student interest is putting

the

progranl in danger. The program is very challenging. To begin with, once a student has entered

the progran1, they do not have the flexibility of transferring out of the progranl; if they do

transfer, they

lllUst start the new program from scratch. There is also the requirement of

nlaintaining above 3.0 COPA for graduation with Honours, which is quite high compared

to

the

2.0 CGPA required for a Major degree.

It

must be noted that there are approximately 500

companies in biomed in BC, thus there are good prospects for students who take biomed, and

therefore the ENSC should look into ways of revitalizing the program.

Summary of

Weaknesses:

e Curriculum has not been revised for S0111e time.

•

Laboratory equiplnent maintenance badly needed.

• Insufficient nUlnber ofTA's.

• Large class sizes.

• Poor attendance in larger classes.

• Lilllited course availability.

~

Long graduation times.

o Difliculties in recruiting students into Bioilled option.

8

---

• Attrition rates are very high.

• Difficulties in obtaining co-op placements.

Recommendations for the Undergraduate Program

Based on the assessnlent of strengths and weaknesses, our recommendations are as follows:

• Substantially increase the

TA

budget.

• Improve the quality of the lab equipment maintenance, better supervision of students using

equipment~

more scheduled lab sessions in combination with open labs.

• Revise the biomed option to make it more flexible for students to opt out.

o Find vvays to increase enrolment in the bio-med option (for example, modify the

requirements for the program, allow students to transfer out of the program without penalty,

advertise more aggressively).

• Offer some courses as Honours courses to challenge the better students while

accommodating the weaker students.

o

Implement smaller class and roon1 sizes to reduce poor attendance and to allow for better

studentlteacher interactions.

e Otler more 8-month co-op terms to allow students to gain deeper experience. This \\;ill

require careful planning of undergraduate offering so as not to negatively impact graduation

times.

• Increase co-op staff to help support the large influx of students.

• Implement lnore projects in courses; students appreciate having projects and tend to attend

classes that offer projects more than those

that do not.

o \Vhile there is potentia) for gro\Nth in enrohnent, given the lc)\vcr entrance standards

(introduction of the lower 2.0 GPA continuance standard for the

rV1

qjors

B.A.St:. progrmn),

care nlust be taken to grow the progranl in relevant areas in order to accommodate such

grovvth.

')

---

Graduate Program

Strengths

As a

result of the DTO initiative, there has been a

760/0

overall increase in graduate enrolment.

The

DTO Inandate was to increase enrolment to achieve 150 graduate students (MASc and PhD

combined); in 2009, 180 students were enrolled in these two programs. The quality of graduate

students in the

ENSC is exceptional. The engineering students do particularly well in obtaining

scholarships; in fact, they are the best

in the university. Over the past 5 years. seven PhD

students became professors in renowned academic institutes, two PhD students received

Governor General's Medals for Outstanding Doctoral Thesis, and many students received best

paper awards in international conferences.

Summary of Strengths:

• Increasing enrolment.

o Exceptional graduate students.

QJ Great research output.

Weaknesses

While the students are doing well academically, they are very dissatistied with the level of

funding they receive, which, in many cases, is none. Other sources of funding are

TA

assignnlcnts (which are severely limited), fellowships, and scholarships. These financial

limitations create anxiety and often prevent students from completing their degree

in an

acceptable tinlefratne, or even conlpleting it at all. Unfortunately. the university itself does not

receive sufficient funding through the provincial government. Faculty mClnbers arc not receiving

enough funding through grants or through industry, which is quite

linlited~

to help fund all

graduate students. Given the research-intensive graduate program, this iSSllC requires seriolls

attention. This funding

problcJ11 nlay also create a negative impact on future enrolment.

There are not enough T A-ships offered to graduate students. This

is surprising

considering the high number

of students in the progratn. At this point given the increase in

enrolment and budget cuts, it has reached crisis point. Tn 2008-09. ENSC spent approximately

$345K on TA budget. In 2009-10, even though cnrolnlcnt has

increascd~

ENSC spent $269K and

10

---

expects to spend only $216K in 2010-11.

It

appears that the TA budget

in

ENSC is

disproportionately small compared to other programs at SFU. For

exanlple~

in the Faculty of

Science, in Physics and Nlathematics in

particular~

there are half the number of students and

yet

double the number of T A-ships are available. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. The

graduate students not only miss out on much-needed financial support, but they also do not get to

benefit from having teaching experience \vhich is also a very important conlponent of graduate

studies.

The graduate programs have expanded rapidly without

any

consideration

for

funding and

space requirements.

Furthermore~

there is a very limited number and limited availability of

graduate courses. This is because faculty is offering large undergraduate courses without proper

T A support. Having said this,

we feel that the course load that the faculty has at the ENSC is

lower than the average across Canadian universities: at the ENSC, professors have an average of

2.5 courses per year, whereas in other universities, the average is 3.0 to 3.5 courses per year.

It

appears that students in the MASc program are taking an average of 3 years to

graduate; this is too long.

In recent years, there has been a substantial decline in the MEng program enroinlcnt

(67% decline since

2002). This progrmn caters to professionals. While the current econOlnic

situation and the tuition increase are among the reasons for the decline, this should be

investigated

further~

otherwise the viability of the program is in danger. Further discussion of

MEng program is presented in part D.

Summary of

Weaknesses:

• Not enough funding for graduate students.

o Not enough TA-ships.

G

Fast expansion of graduate program without consideration of funding and space

requirements.

e Long graduation times.

• Attrition rates are high.

• Limited nunlber and availability of graduate course offering.

o

Decline in MEng program enrolment.

11

---

Recommendations for the Graduate Program

Based on the assessment of strengths and weaknesses. our recommendations are as follow's:

Q

Provide adequate funding for doctoral

students~

ENSC should ensure that PhD students have

a minimal level

of funding which should be sufficient to cover living expenses and tuition.

e Funding Inechanism should be transparent to students.

" Advertise the MEng program more widely, locally, nationally, and international1y; review the

quality

of the program; and review the fee structure of the prograln.

• Reduce the graduation time for MASc students.

• Short annual progress reports should be submitted by graduate students to their supervisors in

order to help keep them on track.

• Create an annual awards day to honour graduate students for their accomplishments.

• The potential for growth in the graduate program hinges greatly on the level of funding

offered to potential students. As

such~

this issue should be addressed in priority.

12

---

B.

UNDERGRADUATE

STUDENT

EXPERIENCE

Strengths

In a meeting with a group of undergraduate student

representatives~

overall, they expressed much

enthusiasm about their experience at the School of ENSC.

The students expressed particular satisfaction with the co-op program, which they feei

gives them a definite edge over other graduates frotTI other universities in

Be.

They would like to

have nlore co-op work-terms that extend to 8 months as this \vould enab1e thelll to gain a deeper

experience in industry.

Students highly support the open-lab concept, where undergraduate labs

are

open tor

students to use every day of the week,

24

hours a day. This concept is advantageous in that it

allows students to access labs at their convenience and to interact freely with other students and

continues to be as popular as when the progranl \vas an elite onc.

Because the Engineering School, unlike other progratns,

is

sul~iect

to accreditation by the

CEAB, they are required to ensure a mininlum standard in Lnany different aspects of the

program. As such, having sufficient design content in the curriculum is important and the School

111eets the criteria. The curricululll exposes students to a number of projects \vith design content

such as the capstone project design course, among others. MSE has t\VO capstone courses.

Student advisers provide guidance to students on course and option selection, university

rules and regulations, career related choices, and they ensure proper progranl cOlnpletion for

each student. Currently, the advising role is taken on by the Lecturers at ENSC. Students have

expressed satisfaction with the advising that they receive by the Lecturers. whom they

particularly appreciate, as well as processes to resolve concerns/complaints. These lecturers play

an important role in undergraduate education and are of high quality.

Summary of Strengths:

• Enthusiastic response from undergraduate students regarding their experience, especially

with co-op.

o Students love the open labs.

13

---

• Sufticient design content in the curriculum.

• Satisfaction with student advising on curriculUln matters by lecturers, as "veIl as processes

to

resolve concerns/co111plaints.

Weaknesses

The undergraduate labs are now used by a very large number of students, and as sllch., the

equipment is handled by many users of varying experience and responsibility. Despite the tacl

that they love having open labs, the students that we met feel that their laboratory experience

could

be considerably improved through better maintenance of the

equipment~

saying that the

labs are "'falling

apart'~.

They also would like to see better supervision of the

students~

expressing their dissatisfaction with the lack of respect and attention by many students towards

the equipment. S0111e labs are also overloaded, a point expressed by faculty melubers as well. and

often, large groups must be formed to complete a particular laboratory. This reduces the quality

of the labs since too many students within a group will retract from the learning experience of

SOITIC students.

The students

were clearly not happy with the large class sizes; they commented that it is

difficult to maintain interest in the lectures with such minilual interaction with the teacher. In

nlany of the courses offered in the early stages of the progran1, students admitted that many do

not attend classes. partly because they could cover the material on their own. partly because the

class sizes are so large that do not feel that they are benefiting from attending class.

It

was stated that the courses that have projects tend to hold student interest lTIOre than

those that do not, and as such, it was suggested that more courses offer projects.

Students

feel that there is insufficient mentorship/counsel1ing available to them. While

they benefit frOln the guidance of the Advisors, they feel it \voltld be highly beneiicial ror new

students to be paired with senior students, or even n10re preferable would be a pairing with u

professor from the start of their progranl.

Summary of Weaknesses:

• Lab experience could be considerably inlproved through better lnaintenance

0 f

the

equipment, better supervision of the students.

o

Large class sizes.

14

---

• Insufficient nlentorship/collllselling

Recommendations to Improve Undergraduate Experience

Based on the asseSSlnent of strengths and weaknesses, our recommendations are as follows:

• Improve tnaintenance of lab equipment in undergraduate labs.

• Increase supervision of student supervision in undergraduate 1abs.

• Reduce class sizes to provide a better student experience.

• Offer more projects in classes.

• Provide mentorship/counselling resources to students, either through senior students or

research faculty and lecturers.

• Create an annual awards day to honour students for capstone projects.

15

---

c. MECHATRONIC SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND BIOMED OPTION

lVlechatronic Systems Engineering (MSE)

The 1\IfSE program is a newly established program which was launched in Fall 2007. The

program will be considered for accreditation in 2010. This is a truly multidisciplinary

engineering program which integrates a number

of engineering disciplines and trains the students

in the development and design of computer controlled electro-mechanical systems. There is a

rapidly growing market for engineers trained in this field and

SFU is only one of very few select

Canadian universities that have developed such

a con1prehensive progranl in this area.

To date, the MSE program has hired ten tenure or tenure-track faculty members. An

additional five nlore faculty positions are expected to be filled in the very near future. The

program is in high demand by both graduate and undergraduate students. The newly hired

faculty members are full

of enthusiasnl and have been very sllccessful in securing funding for

their research projects (approximately $5.7 M in less than three years). The start-up funding of

$1 J 0 k for the newly hired faculty, particularly at the Assistant Professor level, is reasonable and

will help theln greatly in establishing their research program. Another very positive aspect of

MSE is its team of enthusiastic support staff. Support staff plays an important role in smooth

operation

of any enterprise and contribute to its success or failure.

The number

of undergraduate and graduate students has been rapidly increasing in the

MSE program. There are currently 46 graduate students and half of them are registered in the

doctoral progranl. This is almost 5 graduate students per faculty Inember, which is very

respectable.

lndeed~

this is even 1110re impressive considering the relatively young age of the

MSE faculty members.

One of the issues that MSE is currently facing is the quality and the size or available

space

for undergraduate labs and rcsearch labs. According to the Self-Study report MSlfs

available space is at least 113 less than the national average. This problem is only going to

\vorsen by the hiring of the five new faculty meolbers and increase in enrolment of both

undergraduate and graduate students. The current space for some

of the laboratories is silnply

110t suitablc. For cXaJnplc, as reported in the Sel f-Study report, the load on floors is

I

imitcd to

50

1

bs/ft2

which limits the type of equipment that can be placed in these labs. Another example

16

---

would be the sensitive nature of some experinlents to vibration. The current space is not suitable

for such activities. Other very important issues

are related to the difficulty in installing essential

pieces

of equipment such as fume hoods.

We understand that a new building might be constructed within the next five years. We

hope that this will be a reality and that the space problem for MSE will be solved. Vie would like

to elnphasize that the availability of proper space is imperative since further expansion and

success of the program will critically depend on this issue.

The tv1SE progratTI has some interesting and unique features induding the doubJe

Business/MSE degree which is a five-year co-op program. This program was created to prepare

the graduates for engineering managerial positions.

We would like to add that this program may

also prepare the students to become successful entrepreneurs if they choose to start their own

businesses.

The double BusinesslNlSE degree is a five year coop- degree program where

students take all

MSE and Business course. This program will be implenlented once the SFU

Senate has approved it. This committee strongly recommends the approval of the double

Business/MSE degree program.

Another interesting feature of the MSE program is its joint program with the Kwantlen

Polytechnic University. This program offers the students the option to get hands-on design and

manufacturing experience at

K

wantlen Polytechnic University.

Summary of Strengths:

• Excellent MSE program.

• State of the art facility.

e Passionate, enthusiastic, and dedicated Director as well as faculty and staff.

e Excellent tcmnwork on everybody's part to get the progranl to its present. state

• High enrolment.

o Excellent administrative and technical support.

o Administrative and technical staff is highly appreciative of the faculty members, and vice

versa.

• Excellent classes.

a Quality of students is high.

• Shared sense of pride in the progranl by everyone.

17

---

• Good class attendance (likely due in part to the smaller class sizes).

SUmmaR1' of Weaknesses:

• Space limitations and space quality must be addressed.

o The T A budget is extrelnely low. This has to be corrected.

e Research funding should be improved to support the needs of a rapidly growing progranl.

• As with other programs at

SFU~

there is no minilnum guaranteed funding

tor

doctoral-stream

students.

The average funding in 08-09 is reportedly $13222. This is cet1ainly

not.

enough

to

cover tuition

and

living expenses.

at Teaching loads are relatively high due to the limited number of faculty members. This should

be resolved once the additional five positions are filled.

• Limited number of graduate courses offered.

• Insufficient number of T A's.

e Technical and ad1ninistrative support is stretched to the limit.

&

Only 1 advisor/recruiter available that comes once a week.

Recommendations for the MSE Program

e Hire the remaining 5 faculty positions as soon as possible. To lnaintain balance. some of

these positions should be filled at a nlore senior level, i.e., Associate or Full Professors.

• Resolve the space problenl.

• Increase T

A

budget.

• Share technical resources with Computing Science (physical location is

id~al).

o Separate into its own department within the next 3-5 years.

e I-lave an advisor/recruiter conle more regularly.

Biolucdical Engineering ()ption

(BME)

The Biomedical Engineering Option was established within ENSC progranl in Fall 2006 one

year prior to the establishment of the MSE program. This option substituted the

Biomedical

5,"ream

\vithin the ENSC. BME option involves the School of Engineering Science and the

18

---

Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology (BPK). This program is only offered as

an honours degree. In its first year, the option accepted 15 undergraduate students wit.h lhe target

of admitting

30

undergraduates per year within five years and having a total of

40

graJuate

students in this option. It should be noted that biomedical engineering has emerged as a very

in1portant engineering discipline across Canada and many Canadian universities have been

investing in this area. In principle, this option should be in high demand but, surprisingly. it has

had difficulty in attracting enough students at SFU.

Biomedical engineering is described as the

"second"

area of priority within the School of

ENSC. As it stands, the program is in dire need of a strategic plan which spells out the vision for

growth and success. Presently, the ITIOst important task facing the option is to figure out how to

recruit a greater number of students into this option. Although there are a number of faculty

Inelubers in School

of Engineering Science, Computing, and the Department of BiOlnedical

Physiology and Kinesiology, with biomedical engineering expertise, Engineering Science still

needs up to 3 more faculty members in this area.

Although Biomedical Engineering option has been offered for a

few

years~

lower than

expected enrolment in this option has been a problem. There 1l1ay be several reasons

fbr

this

including:

1.

The minimum CGPA requirement 3.0 or higher for graduation with Honours. which IS

significantly higher than the 2.0 required for graduation with a fvfajor degree.

2. Lack of formal relationship with a medical school or a teaching hospital.

3. Specialized core courses for BME option students that need to be taken early.

One of deficiencies of the BME option, which was repeatedly stated in our interviews by the

students, is the poor quality and the lack of maintenance of the laboratories. No one is

responsible for the upkeep of the laboratories.

Summary of Strengths:

• Honors program for very select students.

• Strong C0111111itment from the ENSC faculty involved in the progrmu.

• Co-op.

o Excellent prospects upon graduation.

19

---

Q In five years. strong graduate program.

Q Good interdisciplinary program.

Sunlmary of

Weaknesses:

o The number of faculty members has to be increased by three.

o Difficulty in recruiting UG students.

• High attrition rate.

• Quality

.of ua

lab space and its maintenance.

Recommendations for the Biomed Option

• Hire additional facu1ty members.

• Further utilize the synergies between the BME and the MSE.

• Assign a person to maintain UG labs.

o Longer co-op terms (e.g., 8 months).

o Not enough support staff.

20

---

D. GRADUATE PROGRAM

The Graduate Program at the School of Engineering Science is focused on five areas:

I. Information and Conlmunication;

2. Microelectronics, MEMs, and NEMS;

3. Intelligent Systems, Robotics and Control;

4. Mechatronic Systems Engineering and.

5. Biolnedical engineering.

In collaboration with the Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology and School of

COlnputing Science a formal graduate program in biomedical engineering is also planned.

ENSC offers three graduate programs; these are: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). rv1aster of

Applied Science

(MASc)~

and Iv1aster of Engineering (MEng). The first two of these prograrns

are research intensive while MEng

is designed for working engineers and can be taken on a part-

tinlc basis.

Subject to certain conditions, transfer between MASc and MEng is permitted.

The graduate program at the ENSC attracts many exceptional students and this is a very

positive aspect

of the program. In recent years there has been a great surge in the enrolment of

graduate students. This is primarily the result of the DTO initiative. There has been a

76<Yo

overall increase in graduate enrolment since this initiative was established

by

the

Be

Government. Current enrolment in each program is: 83 in PhD, 96 in MASc and 16 in MEng.

While enrolment in MASc and PhD has been increasing, MEng enrolnlent has declined

significantly. 20% of the graduate students are female while approximately

600/0

of PhD

students are visa students.

One of the nlost important factors which may cvcntua11y undermine recruitment of

talented students for the doctoral stream programs (MASc and PhD) is the lack of cOJumitment

by t.he ENSC to provide tllinimU111 funding during the students' course of study. This funding

should cover both the tuition and living costs. The funds lnay be provided as Research

Assistantship

(RA), Teaching Assistantship (T A), and where applicable. scholarships and

awards. As

an example, University of Toronto guarantees tuition plus $15 k/year for up to five

years for doctoral-stream students. Considering the very small and totally inadequate TA budget

(-., 200 k). the funds will have to be primarily provided fro111 research grants and contrac.:ts. This

21

---

Jack of funding must harm the graduate education at the ENSC. I

t

should. however. be noted that

the t!ngineering students do particularly well in obtaining

scholarships~

in tact they are the best in

the university.

Graduate course offering should

he increased. This has been recognized by the Graduate

Program Committee of the ENSC and is under discussion. This c0l11mittee is a]so going to study

a number

of in1portant issues, including funding of graduate students, over the next three years.

ENSC

is planning to increase the enrolment in graduate program. Much of this expansion will he

in the newly established MSE program. It is prudent to consider how graduate students will be

funded before the proposed expansion.

One issue that is of concern is the significant drop in the MEng enrolment. This drop is

attributed to the economic factors in

Be.

The Graduate Program Committee is studying this

matter as well.

In our opinion, one way to revive the MEng program is to design it so that it

appeals to a bigger segment of engineers in the greater Vancouver area. For example. offer a full-

time MEng program to new immigrants with valid engineering degrees. In general, these

individuals need

to have Canadian experience before they are seriously considered

for

C111p]oynlent by Canadian con1panies. A MEng degree from ENSC wiH certainly provide them

with such experience. 'fhis kind

of program can also bring additional financial resources to the

ENSC.

Globalization of education, particularly graduate education. is currently an important

subject on many campuses. The search

for global partners, as has been proposed by the Graduate

Program Committee (GPC), is commendable and must be rigorously pursued. The

ope

has

correctly identified both the attraction and the retention of highly qualified graduate students as a

priority.

Proper funding of these students wil] be of great ilnportance in this matter.

Summary of Strengths:

e Quality of graduate students is exceptional.

e Number of graduate students per faculty is strong.

• Rapid gro\\t1h of graduate enrolment as a result of the DTO.

•

Large number of scholarship holders; indeed most successful at the SFU level.

o Great research output.

• Offering communication and writing courses to graduate students.

22

---

Summary of \Veaknesses:

o

\Vhile the students are doing well academically, they are very dissatisfied with the level or

funding they receive, which, in many cases, is none, These financial limitations create

anxiety and often prevent students from completing their degree in an acceptable timetl'ame,

or even cOlnpleting it at all.

• There are not enough

T

A-ships offered to graduate students. This is surprising considering

the high number

of students in the undergraduate program. In contrast, in the Faculty of

Science, in Physics and Mathematics in particular, there are half the number of students and

yet double the nutnber of T A-ships are available. This is an issue that needs to be addressed.

• The graduate programs have expanded rapidly without any consideration for funding and

space requirements.

• There is a very limited number and limited availability of graduate courses. This is in spi te of

the fact that the course load that faculty has at the ENSC is lower than the average in other

Canadian universities. At the

ENSC, professors have an average of 2.5 courses/year, whereas

in other universities, the average is

3 to 3.5 courses/year.

I)

MEng progranl enrolment has declined by 67% since 2002. This program is designed to cater

to professionals who enrol

in it on a part-tinle basis. While the current econolllic situation

and the tuition increase are reasons for the decline, this should

be investigated further and the

program should be redesigned.

• Long time to graduate in MASc program (average

3

years).

Recommendations for the Graduate Program

o Provide adequate funding

for

doctora1 students; ES should ensure that PhD students have a

minimal level

of funding which should be adequate to cover

I

iving expenses and tuition.

o Funding nlechanis111 should be transparent to students.

• Number of graduate level courses has to increase

• Short annual progress reports should be submitted by the students.

• Advertise the NIEng. program more widely. locally, nationally, and internationally.

o Reduce the graduation time for MASc students. Currently, the average

c.omph:~tion

lime is 3

years.

..,.,

.;...-,

---

E. RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

The Faculty of Engineering Science is relatively young - it was started in 1983. It has grown

rapidly into a quality educational institution with relatively

high standards.

Cl1rrently~

ENSC has

29 research faculty members at the Burnaby campus with 1 7

Professors~

5 Associate Professors

and 7 Assistant

Professors. The MSE program in Surrey has 10 faculty members with 2

Professors, 4 Associate Professors and 4 Assistant Professors. In 2009-10 academic year, 35

PhD. 37 MASc and 7 MEng were admitted in the ENSC. The areas of research and teaching are

focused in information and communications; microelectronics, l'vtEMS and NEtvlS: intelligent

systelTIS, mechanics and control, mechatronics; and, bionledical engineering. In recent years

there has been a sharp increase

in graduate student enrolment at the IVIASc and PhD level

reversing a declining trend at the MEng level. This

is mainly due to the Mechatronics program

which started

in 2007. In the following paragraphs we outline some of the strengths and

weaknesses of the research enterprise of the school foHowed by recomnlendations.

Strengths

The general level of research activity is quite commendable when measured in tenns of research

grants and research results obtained. Indeed the current research funding

is

at

approxilnately

$3t\.1 or $80K per faculty per year. The current NSERC Discovery Grants funding level is about

$27K per award which

is above the national average. In the last 10 years, the ENSC has obtained

19

NSERC Strategic and CRD awards,

31

NSERC Discovery awards,

6

CFI and

4

CIHR awards.

We noted that almost every faculty member has some form of research funding. The rate of

research publications in journals and conferences is also judged to be

satisJ~lctory

ancl

the

ENSe

fflculty 111elnbers have over a 100 patents to their credit.

Regarding

qualit.y of research, SFU has been ranked first in the number of citations per

paper in Engineering (as well as Physics and Economics) albeit in a somewhat dated survey.

FUlthern10re, in a recent McLcan Inagazine ranking of Canadian Universities, SFU has bec]]

ranked in first place in the Comprehensive Universities category and has been among the top 4

several times. The new Dean

Prof. Nimal Rajapakse and the Director of the ENSC. Prof.

Mehrdad Saif arc both active in research despite their administrative duties. This example from

15

---

the leadership should spur higher levels of research activity. The new Dean should also be an

effective voice to represent the interests of the ENSC to the University senior administration.

'vVe point out several relevant facts pertinent to the research enterprise, specifically

external visibility, and engagement with the community.

Three faculty members are Fellows

of professional societies. Of these two arc IEEE

Fellow.s. Two faculty tnembers have received awards from the Michael Smith Foundation for

Health Research. One faculty member received the Colton Medal for Research Excellence for

Microsystem Design, and another faculty member received the Manning I nnovation A \.vard as

well as the Industrial Innovation Award. There are also an NSERC Innovation Challenge Award.

an

NSERC University Faculty Award, a Creative Engineering Award a British Colunlbia

Council

Award~

a Canadian Pacific Railway Medal, an MIT Teaching Award and the Luigi

Napolitano Award from the International Astronomical Federation.

The Dean

is an internationally renowned scholar with several awards including the

prestigious Alexander von Humboldt Award

to his credit. The Director of the School is highly

visible and active in the IEEE Control Systems Society and has received appreciation fro111 the

B.C. Science Council. Many faculty lTIcmbers (23 to be precise) are in journal and conference

editorial boards. Several

of these are in the prestigious IEEE Transactions as well as IEEE

Conferences.

An ENSC faculty Inember was one of 6 BC inventors profiled in the November

2007 of

Be

Business.

Many faculty members are

in Who's Who listings for Science, Technology and

Engineering. The above facts and data show that the

ENSC is visible, productive and engaged

\vith the scientific cOlllmunity as far as its research enterprise goes.

Summary of Strengths:

• 4th in engineering in Canada

o Highly active in research

o $31\1 in grants ($80klfaculty member on average)

• High enrolment in MASc and PhD programs

• 3 eRe's

.. 2 Michael Smith Foundation Awards

• Microfabrication facility

26

---

•

~fanning

Foundation awards

o

Several NSERC strategic, CHRP grants and others

• Dean and Director ofENSC are both active in research and teaching despite their

administrative duties.

• New Dean should be an effective voice for engineering at the Senior Adl11inistration level.

• Relatively low teaching loads should allow more time for research.

• Good quality of the research infrastructure in terms of equipment.

Weaknesses

The attrition rate of graduate students is generally too high. The funding available to support

graduate

students, stated to be at 83% for PhD' sand 70% for Masters' is low. The nunlber of

Post Doctoral Fellows (15 in the last 10 years) must be improved. Collaboration \vith the local

Be

industry has been difficult as there are limited opportunities. Space for research labs is

limited. In a tour

of the labs, it was surprising to see how many faculty Inelnbers' labs are so

limited

by space.

SUlnmary of Weaknesses:

o Space for research labs is limited. This is going to be even more severe for the MSE

program.

• Lilnited collaboration \vith local industry since there are limited opportunities.

e University policy on intellectual properties and invention may hanlper collaboration with

industry

o Very few postdoctora1 fellows.

o High attrition rate.

• No policy for graduate student funding.

o A number of faculty members have no NSERC Discovery Grant.

Recommendations to Improve Research Enterprise

Based on the assessn1ent of strengths and

weaknesses~

our recommendations are as follows:

27

---

• The ENSC should not enter into new areas of research and teaching at this time of financial

constriction. It should concentrate on strengthening its current areas of activity and in this

regard can consider implementing a number

of

steps~

including what follows.

G

Itnplementation of a Distinguished Lecturer Program which would bring lJ1, say, 8

internationally renowned scientists every year to the campus for 1-2 days

of research

discussions and interaction. This will benefit the Faculty as well as graduate students.

• Creating more links internationally so that the faculty can engage in joint research, academic

visits

and exchange students.

o Attempting to increase and diversify graduate student enrohnent. Reaching out to good

schools in Europe and

Asia with recruitment posters and publicity could in1prove the quality

and quantity

of the school's research output.

• Hosting international conferences in the field as well as offering workshops to industry.

• Instituting a regular program of internal research seminars by faculty and graduate students

to increase awareness of peers' research and increase collegiality.

ta

The upper administration needs to better recognize that Engineering has special needs due to

the laboratory-intensive curriculmn, accreditation requirements and industry internships.

Thus ENSC should not be treated at par with other Schools and Engineering should receive

proportionately more resources than say, liberal arts.

28

---

F. ENGAGEMENT WITH THE LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL

COMMUNITY

The ENSC faculty members have been trying to engage the local industry for some time.

Traditionally~

they have had a strong tie to industry. Because of the recent economic crunch they

have had less success as there are limited opportunities in the high tech fields in the

Be

area.

Despite

this~

the faculty has been interacting with the local

Be

community [see the specific itenlS

above related to this (Prof. Bird's inventor award and Prof. Saifs recognition by the

Be

Science

Council)].

It

could be productive to start collaborating with faculty at University of Victoria and

University

of British Columbia on research and academics. For example the Biomedical

Engineering could profit from

joint research with the Medical School at UBC.

Internationalization and globalization is another very important area of future gro\Nth.

The School intends to seek partnership and exchange programs with good universities from

China, India, Iran, etc. Such agreements will ensure the recruitn1ent

of high quality graduate

applicants. Finally, placing

ITIOre undergraduate students for their co-op in other countries can

trelnendously boost international recognition

of the School.

Summary

of Strengths:

• SOlne successful industrial collaborations

CI

Intenlational placement of co-op students

Summary

of Weaknesses:

• Difficult to collaborate with local industry since there are limited opportunities.

" Intellectual property policy should be reviewed and revised to enhance collaboration with

industry.

Q Although many faculty members are trying to engage the local, national, and international

industry, the effort could

be more successful.

There is also a need to engage with the international comnlunity in the respective fields

by starting a program

of scholarly exchanges of faculty and students and diversification of

international graduate student recruitnlent. We have already Illade suggestions regarding the

29

---

hosting of a Distinguished Lecturer Program as well as a program of conferences and worksh('pS.

This would engage the international acadetnic and engineering con11111mities with ENSC anJ

SFU. ENSC should formulate a systematic procedure to try to elect faculty members as Senior

Iv1embers and Fellows of their respective Societies and to place them in administrative

assignments

in the Society and other organizations such as NSERC. This would increase the

School's

visibility and influence.

Recommendations to Engage with Community

• Faculty should increase interdisciplinary research and collaborations with other universities.

particularly with

UBC and UVIC.

• Host Distinguished Lecturer Program and a program of conferences and workshops.

• Increase faculty participation in important organizations.

• Establish an awards committee that meets regularly and identifies faculty nlelnbers that can

be nominated for provincial, national, and international awards. The committee should help

candidates in preparing their nomination forms. Increasing the number of 8\vards wiH greatly

promote the

ENSC.

G. OTHER COMMENTS

The Review Committee strongly recommends that SFU carefully reviews its reward and

compensation policy, in particular as it relates to the professorial staff. This should be a high

priority for the administration given the distortions produced

by the salary ceiling and the

resulting compression (and even inversion) that it can produce. The senior fac.ulty, of which there

are a significant number, are affected by salary caps which result in salary compression. Many

renlain unrewarded monetarily despite several years of above average perfonnance. Finally,

over 95% of the ENSC budgct is COlnlnittcd to the salaries. This leaves very little room to have

any initiative.

Since 2002, there has been $1.1 M cut to the base budget. This cannot continue.

I

ndeed, we recomnlend finding ways to restore these cuts.

30

---

CLOSING

REMARKS

In the face of many challenges, ENSC has achieved success in many areas. The OTO challenge

created opportunities for expansion. but along with this CaIne growing pains. ]n order to continue

to succeed and to be among the top universities in Canada, the University and ENSC need to

seriously consider how to alleviate these pains in order to achieve once again a high level of

excellence. Although the School has been faced \V'ith severe budget cuts. it appears that ENCS

should be perceived by the University in a more realistic manner: in other \vords, the engineering

programs are ones that require intensive experimental work. that are subject

to

rigorolls

accreditation requirements, and that

are facing increasing enrolment, and as such. resources

should be appropriately allocated

to maintain these programs.

The committee believes that

the priorities for ENSC at this time should be to address the issues

of increased enrolment and the associated needs for new facu1ty, support

staff~

space, equipment

Inaintenance.

and funding for graduate students. It is our belief that these are the most urgent

issues at this tiiTIC.

The conlnlittec would like to take this opportunity to once again thank everyone at SFU for their

assistance before. during, and after their visit and would like

to wish ENSC luck and much

success in its future endeavours.

31

---

EXTERNAL REVIEW - ACTION PLAN

Section 1- To be completed

by

the Responsible Unit Person e.g. Chair or Director

Unit under review

School of Engineering Science

Responsible Unit person,

Mehrdad Saif

Faculty

Dean

Nimal Rajapakse

Date of Review Site visit

I

...............................................................

April 7-9, 2010

I ............................................................

.. ................................................. .

Note: It is not expected that every recommendation made by the Review Team needs

to

be included here. The major thrusts of the Report should be

identified and some consolidation of the recommendations may be possible while other recommendations of lesser importance may be excluded.

!

r

Ur:i~'s

response

Resource

External Review

I

Recommendation

"

nctesi Comments

Action to be taken

implications

I

{if any)

(if any)

1. Undergrad.

Education

Substantially increase

the T

A, budget.

~

2. Undergrad.

~

Education

The Schooi has been

strugg;i~g

with shrinking

and

histo.ically low TA

budget.

We fuliy agree with this

recommeildation as

stated in Sections

4.3.3

and

4.9.4

~f

the Self

Improve the quality of

the lab equipment

maintenance, better

supervision of

I Study

~epcrt.

students using

equiprnent,nnore

scheduled lab sessions

I

in cOlnbination with

open labs.

While managing our resources in best possible

way,

we will continue making our case for

increased TA funding.

In

2009,

two new committees, Curriculum

Reform Committee

(CRC)

as well as Biomedical

Option Curriculum Committee (BOCC) were

struck. CRC will review and make

recommendations for a major curriculum

revision and reform of

all

engineering options.

However" since biomedical option is the newest

option and has its own challenges, different

from other established options, Boee was

created

to work in parallel and in collaboration

with eRe to consider issues relevant to the

Directly related to

resources made

available to the School.

For scheduled labs

more TA and faculty

instruction time is

required. lab

equipment renewal is

a

problem due to lack of

base budget funding.

One-time funding such

as supplemental

funding due to over-

enrollment has been

used

to address urgent

issues.

Expected

completion date

Unknown.

Pia n of action for

curriculunl

changes:

Committee

Recommendations:

May

2011

Implementation:

September 2011

Completion:

December 2012

biomedical option. The hope is that these two

committees will make recommendations to our

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (Uee)

that would result in curriculum innovation and

~----------------~--------------------~--------------------------~~~~

__ L- ________________

.~L-

_____ . _________

~

---

wholesale revision of our programs. It is hoped

that CRC and BOee recommendations will

address many

of the issues raised by the

external reviewers in their report.

Specifically, to address the issue raised by the

reviewers, ENSC 220 (Electric Circuits I) is the

first ENSe course in our Burnaby campus, which

now includes scheduled labs. Also ENSC 215

(Microcontroller

Interfacing and Assembly-

language Programming)

now has scheduled

labs. We are also considering scheduled labs

for

ENSC 225 (Microeiectronics I) as well. For higher

level courses,

a combination of scheduled and

open labs

is under consideration by UCC and

CRC as per External Review Committee's

recommendation.

---

3 Undergrad.

Being

considered. See

The Biomedical Option Curriculum Committee

Not known.

Recommendations:

Education

previous

reply.

(BGCe) is working on this and will report its

May 2011

Revise the biomed

recommendations to Curriculum Reform

Implementation:

option to make it more

Committee (CRC) for further discussion. The

September 2011

flexible for students to

final recommendations will be considered by

Completion:

~ut.

UCc.

December 2012

4. Undergrad.

We agree with the first

Class sizes will be reduced starting Fall 2010 by

Increased faculty

hlln1ediately (Fall

Education

recommendation

as

offering multiple sections of high enrolment

teaching load which has

2010).

Implement smaller

stated

1n

Sections 4.9.5

courses.

been approved.

class sizes to reduce

and 9.5. Also, many ENSC

poor attendance-

courses have lab/project

Inore projects courses.

components already.

_.

---

5. U ndergrad.

Positive asoects: Deeper

CRC will consider replacing the current three 4-

Positive

impact on

Plan of action: Jan

Education

experience

to students;

month coop terms, with one 8-month and one

resource

requirement,

2011

Offer more

8-month

Less work for coop staff;

4-month coop terms. This requires careful

as each student will

co-op

terms to

allow

Attractive to employers.

scheduling

of course offerings as well.

require two coop

Start of

students to gain

Nega~ive

aSQects:

placements in the

Implementation:

deeper experience.

Students may find

it

course of their

Fall 2011

harder to get back to

education, rather than

Completion: Fall

studies after being away

three.

2012.

from SFU for a long

period

of time. Multiple

offering of courses is

needed to implement

this recommendation.

6. U ndergrad.

We

a;~

currently

We

will monitor the workload of the co-op

Requires

additional

Ongoing.

Education

adequateiy staffed.

MSE

office.

financial resources

to

I ncrease co-op staff to

may, however, need a

implement.

help support the

large

full time ?A (currently

influx

of students.

half tir,;e) in future.

7. Undergrade

Entrance

standards are

Given

the demand for our programs, the School

None.

January

2011

Education

consiste:1t or remain

has raised its entrance requirements this year

With

lower entrance

higher than many

other

and will re-evaluate its admission policy once

standards

engineering

Schools.

again after we have a clear picture of freshman

care

must be taken to

They are also in line or

enrollment levels this fall.

gro"'" the program in

higher than

University

relevant

areas.

grad

u()tion requirements.

--

8. Graduate Education

l)ENSC

1$

a research

This is a complex issue that requires meaningful

Some commitment and

Fall 2011

1)

Provide adequate

intensive

unit and this is

discussion and dialogue between faculty

support from the

funding

for doctoral

a very important and

supervisors, Schoo!,

FAS Dean and Dean of

University for doctoral

students; and

2)

complex issue that

Graduate Studies to arrive at a reasonable

students.

should

Funding

be

mechanism

transparent

requires creative

solution. The graduate program committee will

to students.

solutions.2) We already

initiate discussions and various possibilities such

Ongoing.

have published on our

as considering allocating all our available

I web site ENSC criteria

Graduate Fellowships

to doctoral students in

L- ________

---

based on which we

their second to the fifth year. We expect our

adjudicate Graduate

Graduate Program

Committee to have some

Felfowship applicants. In

recommendations after considering this issue in

line

with TSSU guidelines

depth with all involved.

there is also a

I transparent process for

We will update or revise the ENSC graduate

TA application and

fellowship adjudication criteria on the web as

allocation.

necessary.

--

9. Graduate Education

Student demand for

We will revise our web site.

None anticipated.

Summer 2011

Advertise the MEng

M.Eng. programs vary

program more widely,

widely between regions

We will create student handbook that includes

locally, nationally,

and dlsciplines.

the pre-requisite structure of graduate courses.

and internationally;

revie'vv the quality of

We will disseminate our graduate program

the program; and

brochure to the local industry.

revie'w the fee

structure

of the

We will also re-visit the MEng's mandate and

program.

consider opening the program to international

students/partner institutions.

----~--.--

10.

Graduate Educatior.

Annuai :-eports are

We will track and follow up on students who

Increase workload for

Spring 2011

Reduce the graduation

already being done.

have exceeded a specified

time limit in the

our already over loaded

time for MASc

Howeve r, we will re-visit

program. We

will

ievise

our annual progress

graduate secretary.

studeDts. Short annual

I and revise some of our

report, and seek justification from the student

progress reports

I current measures

and

should be submitted

will perha ps introduce

and the supervisor on the degree completion

by

graduate students

. new measures to address

time. We will strictly enforce the rule that

to their supervisors in

this issue.

students missing

the annual progress report will

order to help keep

be not eligible for graduate fellowships,

them on track.

scholarships, or other benefits.

11.

Graduate Education

! This will

~aturally

happen

Grad course

offering is on the rise already. We

..

_-

--

None anticipated.

Ongoing.

Increase grad

level

I

with increase in MSE

will explore the possibility of offering more

faculty.

-------

---

courses.

cross-listed senior-undergraduate/graduate

courses.

12. Student

Fully agree.

Currently

three full-time lecturers are providing Increased faculty

Fall 2010 or Spring

Experiences

academic advising to undergraduate students

(lecturer) workload.

2011

Provide

and some mentoring and counseling when

mentorship/counseling

students are in difficult academic situations.

resources to students.

The plan is for all five lecturers to engage in

such activities. For

MSE, due to the relatively

smaller

number of students and faculty this

duty will be handled by the Systems One

advisor (to be hired) .in the first year, and in the

later years, by individual faculty members.

13.

MSE Program

We are hiring

them

Two faculty members have been hired. One

Funding already in

By January 2011

Hire the remaining 5

based on our position

already

is on board, and the other will join in

place.

One position

faculty positions as

approval plans.

January

2011. The remaining 3 (or 2 based on

may be lost due to

soon as possible, some

the budget) will be hired in 2011 or later after

budget cuts over the

at a more senior level:

BOG approves these positions.

past

two years.

i.e., Associate or Full

Professors.

14. MSE Program

I Very urgent issue.

The School

will continue working with the

A new building is

Ongoing.

Reso 1 ve the space

University on this very important and urgent

required to meet the

problem.

issue. The

MSE

program has serious and urgent

needs of Mechatronics

need for additional and proper space for the

as well as other

program.

programs in Surrey.

--

15. MSE Program

This

is an issue for all of

Unfortunately, the budget of Mechatronics

Restoration of cuts to

Unknown.

Increase T A budget.

ENSC

and as such was

program was

not protected from cuts although

the Mechatronics

addressed before.

the program is still under development. As a

budget over the past 3

result,

limited funding is available for TAs. The

years.

I

program is due for its first accreditation visit in

February

2011 and there are serious resource

I

issues with respect to the number of technical

!

staff ,

TA and equipment budget and space.

16. MSE Program

I Being addressed through

A Faculty-wide re-organization

of student affairs

Supported

from

December 2010

I-lave an

Systems One staff

is in progress and a new hire for Systems One

Systems One budget

---

advisor/recruiter come

I position.

will be in place before the end of 2010.

allocation

from VPA.

more regularly.

I

-

17. Biomed Program

l)No resources available

Biomedical engineering program

is a joint

Current resources are

None.

1) Hire additional

at this time for this.

program between

ENSC and BPK Department.

adequate compared

to

facul~y

members.2)

2) Already done.

We believe

that between ENSC, MSE, and BPK,

our overall priorities.

Further utilize the

3) We have very limited

there are enough faculty members

to support

synergies between the

number of staff for all

this option.

BME and the MSE.3)

our progra ms. No

Not enough support

program has its own

staff.

staff.

--

18. Research

Enterprise

We fully agree.

We hope the new budget process

will address

-

Unknown.

The upper

some of these issues.

administration needs

to

better recognize

that Engineering has

special needs due to

the laboratory-

intensive curriculum,

accreditation

requirements and

industry internships.

Thus ENSC should

not be treated at par

I

with other Schools.

-

The above action plan has b ___ " .

.Jor'~"

hp_.lJ.A.f4oo-rlmT'l"Pelr review and has been discussed and agreed

to by the

Dean.

Unit Leader (signed)

Date

-

-- -

J

,--N_am_e_

..

_.ffz._~--.;:~--.;dd:_._:~~f;/yt,,_.f.._

....

_

...

....

_

_

....

_.

-f+-

__

Ti_tle_

.•.

_A_.r.J_ll~_

..

_

.

.

_'":r.._

••

tff_

..

/)_.!.._t_~_

..

_

...

_

....

_

..

___

...L..-..-.

••••

_f.1_rL:_

...

_._

...

_.?P--L

....

r-

....

??.(.~

.........

-=~~~.~.=-.~_

---

Section 2 - Dean's comments and endorsement of the

Action

Plan:

This is the first external review of the School of Engineering Science after the completion of DTO expansion. The reviewers have commented positively

on School's activities inciuding its highly regarded technical communication program, mandatory co-op program, open-labs and new Mechatronics

Systems Engineering program. The general level of research activity is found to be quite commendable when measured in terms of research grants

($80K per faculty per year) and research results. The school should be congratulated for the positive evaluation by the reviewers. With regard to the

recommendations and action plan outiined

by

the Director, I am in full agreement. My comments on key topics of the review report are given below.

Undergraduate Curriculum Revision and Student Experience: The action plan is acceptable and practical. The issues concerning student experience will

be addressed during the curriculum review.

Graduate

Student Funding: Although the reviewers have commented critically on this issue, the School is doing its best to support graduate students.

The

main problem is re:atively lov.,' TA support per student compared to other units. According to data the prepared by the Dean of Graduate Studies,

the school ranks second

at SFU in terms of the total research funding ($1.47M) directed for graduate student support. I recommend discontinuing the

practice of accepting international PhD students without funding. The school should develop a strategy to attract more NSERC scholarship recipients.

Mechatronics Systems Engineering Program and Space: This is a very successful program with high student demand. The first accreditation visit will

take place in February 2011. The program needs a stable budget to complete its development. The space available in Surrey for Mechatronics is still

inadequate although the program recently received some new space.

Research: There

is room to attract more research funding by pursuing large team grants and collaboration with regional universities. The School has

strong

ties to industry and should develop a strategy to attract more research funding from industry.

Budget Issues:

Many comments of the reviewers are related to the school budget (e.g. TA, laboratory equipment, student advising, etc). Although the

OTO Program brought additional resources to the School, the increase in undergraduate and graduate enrollment has been very large (approximately

80 undergraduate students per year in the pre-DTO era to nearly 250 students per year in 2010 and nearly 300% increase in graduate enrollment). This

is causing substantial pressure on every aspect of the school. To put this issue in proper context, I have looked at data published

by

Engineers Canada

for Canadian

engineeri~g

programs. Engineering Science at SFU is 40% below the average space allocation for engineering programs in Western Canada

and 30% below the Canadian average for

$$

per FTE undergraduate student.

Facu lty Dean

.

~

(;

('~l~~

...........................

~:.~

....

~

....................

.

Date

(!)

~~c

J

.~c.(j

.

.................................................................................

.

~------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------------~